Anyone who doesn't watch  the different viewpoints on the  Left and  Right is merely a puppet of their own regime and ignorant of many facts...

If you look around you at your neighbors and co workers 90% of people are followers and 10% are leaders .. So it makes sense that most of the followers would only watch the station that suits their agenda..

Why should I pay attention to a pack of yahoos that glibly declare everyday that sun is shining just fine thank you very much when any dumb fuck can stick his head out the window and see that mother of all storms is headed our way?

Nothing personal but that's an incredibly dumb statement.  You're saying that anyone who accesses multiple sources of information, and  reads several newspapers is ignorant just because they don't watch cable news?  Sorry, not buying that one.

I didn't say you had to watch Cable Fox or NBC TV to keep from becoming a unenlightened follower of your masses ..Its okay to view the other viewpoints on Internet and skip the frieking commercials..Once again I am saying if you only watch your version of what is correct you never learn other view points ...But thats OK its your choice and like I said 90% of the people only follow..

...  that same argument (consideration of different points of view) supports people who believe in Creationism and people who deny the Holocost.  Surely, you can get magazines that will do a MUCH better job than Fox in supporting conservative issues and causes.

Why would I buy magazines or newspapers when I can read all of them on line.. Even though I a Right Wing Capitalistic Free Enterprise Freedom Loving Zealot I don't see the point in wasting all that energy printing the paper and then discarding .If it wasn't for all those trees cut down to make those mags and newspapers and all the coal fired plants making electricity to fire up the presses the earth would be twenty degrees cooler..

one is verifiable by facts, documents and witness accounts... the other - a theory... put forth to reconcile science and religious views...

not long ago - I put forth the hypothesis (to an athiest http://www.rationalresponders.com/) that science can be considered a religion.... of sorts... why?  Because it has the trappings of religion... that is 1) that some things are taken by an act of faith.... 2)that science has a priesthood of sorts (scientists and supporter services to scientists) and 3) "holy writ"  ya know - "the literature!"  and proscribed "rituals" (ie, the sacrements, the "scientific method" etc...)

The athiest could not acknowledge that this was the case... began screaming at moi!  lol!  so much for rational discussion.  Enjoy!

-- Modified on 12/7/2007 8:13:10 AM

ALL science is MADE UP.

AND made up by MAN.

I can't believe how many supossedly rational, inteligent adults actually believe that religious books are really the word of "God"

Most children figure out that Santa Claus is bullshit by the age of seven or eight. Why is it that so called adults still need fairy tales to get themselves through the day? what's really frightening is how many of these same people believe in their version of the fairy tale that the are willing to kill other people who just happen to believe in a different fairy tale.

If there really is a God, he certainly fucked this one up.

Fox is a lousy source of left and Right viewpoints - they just thrive on the yelling for entertainment value, not much to be learned about an issue there.

saaying a scientist takes something on faith is entirely different that a religious faith. A scientist draws conclusions based on testing hypotheses. The testing continues as new evidence arises. The religious faith-fellow says god did it, the sacred book tells me thus and so, so i believe it regardless of facts to the contrary. In fact, don't bother me with facts.

A priesthood of scientists is nonsense.

Holy writ?- I don't even know WTF you're referring to.

Creationism is nonsense masquerading as 'science'.

Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Religion is made up, not science.

Religion, religious texts share a motif, share stories, share myths - all devised in the minds of mostly men. Hildegard of Bingen had some religious visions, but she was subject to severe migraine.

Paul's vision on the road to Damascus was likely some sort of mental seizure, interpreted by his religious fervor as a sing from his favorite deity

I never said any such thing about religion.

Of course religion is a man made invention. I just wanted to make sure that everyone realized that science is also.

-- Modified on 12/8/2007 6:32:13 PM

You're correct on point one and incorrect on point two.

All science is made up by man. Name a single piece of scientific "knowledge" that wasn't written or documented by "man"?

Of course "made up" is the key phrase here. As art is a "qualitative" expression and langauge of how we observe and relate to our world, science is a "quantitative" (mostly) description of what we can observe directly or indirectly with our senses. It is continually changing (improving most would say) as our (man's) ability to understand changes. But the whole thing is based on constructs that MAN invented.

far too many people, including scientists, exhibit their own sort of "blind faith" when it come to "scientific fact". Some think that science is rigid and non-changing.

The underlying physics and chemistry that make up OUR universe may not be changing (at least not such that we can see, YET), but how we see them is changing (i.e. our ability to see things more clearly or more accurately is improving). Our ability to observe "all things scientific" is continually changing, and it changes in concordance with and in ways that WE invent. Our "inventions" are all (supposedly) intended for us to be better able to understand what's happening. But can't we make mistakes, head down the wrong path, overlook (or ignore) something? Science may strive to be quantitatvely accurate, but it's not perfect.


-- Modified on 12/9/2007 10:53:43 AM

I am so glad that I was not actually talking about you.I was referring to those billions of people that treat fairy tales which should only be believeable to little children, not only as fact, but worth killing over. RWU, I am happy that I cannot count you as one of those mindless sheep.

While I am not a big personal believer in organized religion, I have a very strong "faith" in something I call GOD. I, like most, don't go around killing or injuring people in the name of my faith. And while most violent mass acts in history have been done in the name of religion, the underlying reasons were mostly political or dictatorially personal. Religion was only the excuse or a means to an end (mostly). Religion doesn't abuse people, only those people in control of it (and for the most part distort the religion) are the abusers.

please tell me your not one of those God hating pants crappers that exxagerate the shit out of everything as if it bolsters your case

please say it aint so.....

lemmings crack me up.

even the best scientist admit there is far more OUTSIDE their realm of knowlegde than what is contained within it.

blinded by intellectual pride, they are too afriad to admit the possible existence of something thay don't understand...

thus the snarkiness....

fear

who claim to have all the answers, because god talks to them.

thus my disdain

fair enough...

but to include those who's God is always in need of cash..

An all powerful God, who needs my money...yeah right

scientific funding committee... which is what I am doing this weekend.  

In my list of similarities I forgot - the practitioners of both science and religion - both need cash for their "cause"

if i panhandle under the guise of it to "benefit" you, that does'nt make YOU a charlatan

so all of the idiocy you see humans do "in the name of God" diminishes God not one whit.

this is a simple concept otherwise intelligent adults seem to have a difficult time wrapping their brains around

it's a defense mechanism for the ego

I am both a scientist (publications, patents and products on the market) and a practicing Christian.  I have no conflict between these two and they are NOT compartmentalized in my life.  Concepts and theories are just that "concepts and theories" - they help explain the universe around us.  For while science helps explain the "how" of the universe, religion helps explain the "why" of the universe.

But who am I? if you have difficulty with my reasoning, read Einstein or Hawking... they readily admit that they cannot offer an explanation to the "why of the universe"!  

The pseudo intellectual I had this conversation with is a pseudo-intellectual BECAUSE 1) she has a closed mind (especially about things that we simply have no answers for and have to take on faith) and 2) she cannot acknowledge the limits of her own individual knowledge....

I recognize both for what they offer, and for the limitations of what they offer.  Does God intervene in our lives on a personal level?  Do the rules of the universe change?  Why did the universe come into existence?  

Tell me that you have answers in a testable manner... to answer each of these questions.  I don't.  

For those of you who support one (science/religion) over the other, my comments apply to both equally - to the person who did not know what I meant by "holy writ" and "the literature"  - man - you need to attend some of the scientific meetings I go to!  People just about scream about "the literature" especially when some junior post-doc misquotes the screamer.  

One of the concepts offered above was that scientific "fact" changes - this is very true.  But "religious fact" changes as well....  and hopefully the radical extremists will change their "fact" of the need to kill the infidel, and the Christian right the need to "convert" everyone...

Threaten you with hell, or entice you with heaven. I much prefer to reap the benefits of my investment in this lifetime, not the next.

look at the support of the scientific community to AL Gore's rediculous interpretation of the "selected scientific data" and their prediction that UNLESS you fund them more...well - we just won't know what to do.  

Want another example? Embryonic stem cell research... unless YOUR tax dollar supports this sepcific line of resarch - you and your children WILL dies of alzheimers...!  Never mind that other types of steam cells are proving to me as or more valuable... (and I DO support embryonic stem cell research, just want all the facts "out there").
There are others

I do support the funding of science - HOWEVER - science needs some cleaning... cause as it stands today Dec 9, 2007 - it is somewhat biased and under the influence of too many with a need for greed.

Seriously, scientists lobby the government, post ads requesting funds and a belief in their "solutions"!  So scientists do threaten you.  sometimes their statements are true and sometimes they are not...  just like the priest who tells you to donate cause the kiddies are starving elsewhere.

are devised by, emerge from, how ever you want to say it, Man.

Surely you recognize the difference though between employing a process of discovery, testing, challenging, revising and saying an  unseen deity did thus and so and we should accept this 'cuz it was dictated by this same deity to a desert sojourner centuries ago.  

Dontcha think?

It's got nothing to do with fear or intellectual pride. Scientists have "method" used to understand our world. The possible existence of something outside their understanding is nothing more than that - a possibility. The religious can debate the "possibleness" of their other thing to their hearts content, but apparently they can't agree on much, given the variety of deities and explanations of deities involved.

With nothing concrete, and no way to determine anything they're yaking in the dark. Talk about lemmings....

I would only say that science has "change" built in - it's methodology encourages challenging assumptions and facts. Religious institutions discourage change, abhor challenges, and fight to maintain the status quo. Change is forced upon them from outside.

The Catholic church centuries ago finally had for conceed that Copernicus was on to something. Pope XYZ had already dropped 10 days from a calender year in order to realign the days with the factual position of celestial bodies. They would rather have buried Copernicus and his Principia, but reality forced them them to change.

Your examples are spot on,but in the defense of science, there are many, many tangible benefits to science. the fact that we are able to communicate this way would have been considered magic just a few decades ago.

Religion OTOH except for maybe a certain "feel good" benefit to the practitioners which is impossible to quantify, has no tangible benefits and is responsible, directly or indirectly for many if not most of the conflicts over the past couple of millenia. It would be a fair staement that we enjoy the lifestyle that we now enjoy, inspite of, and not because of religion. Left to the religious zealots, we would still be living in the Dark Ages, and if the war between Islamic terrorist and us expands into a war between Christians and Muslims, a return to the Dark Ages is a possibility that can't be reuled out.

All in the name of "My god is better than your God"

I'm not a proselytizing person about my faith, but

I don't mind (usually) others doing it. As long as they obey the law and go away when I ask, they can proselytize all day. Of course certain ones become looney because of it, but I have never heard of any Christians (today) straping on C4 vests to reduce the herd of unbelievers.

About the term "made up". . .
There are several different levels of made up. The most simple of which are units of measure. We didn't like those of old (imperial pound, foot, gallon, etc.) so we made up new ones. But even though they are easier to use, a kilogram and other SI units) are still made up based on water (KG= the mass of one liter or cubic decimeter of water).

The universe is still the same regardless of the units of measure, right? We discovered the most simple electric charge (of the electron) so we called it the ELEMENTARY charge. Not equal to ONE though? It is 1.602176487 x 10-19 Coulombs. We called it the smallest unit of charge that existed, until the little old QUARK came along with 1/3 and 2/3 of a charge.

And the whole world of physical and electrical constants aren't really CONSTANTS. They are actually relationships between other constants that aren't really constants. They all have UNCERTAINTY in our ability to measure them. Some we call EXACT, but only so the value of the remaining ones don't go flittering around. Some are exact, like there are 12 protons in a carbon atom (at least for now).

There was a paper written that I am dying to find again that describes what the world and universe would be like if one or more of the dozen or so “main” constants actually were different by just a small amount. Or put another way, the universe couldn't exist as anything like we know unless the constants were "just so". Who decided to "set" their values to such opportune levels?

-- Modified on 12/9/2007 2:32:35 PM

Except when it comes to man made global warming.

"Who decided to "set" their values to such opportune levels?"

First of all you question requires that we stipulate that "someone/something set the values in the first place and that they didn't just happen.

Secondly, I think you could pick a better place to look for your answers than a book written by/for people who believed the world was flat among other things.

Your question is like asking "What are the odds of The Dtroit Lions leading the Dallas Cowboys at halftime by exactly the score of 20-14 today?" Looking in hindsight, the odds are !00% Your question could be answered in the same fashion, and is just as meaningful/meaningless

Are you talkig to me? Because I never said anything about religion and science being identical. They are distictly different, as are Art and Science, as are Fictional and Non-Fictional Literature.

Science and Religion. . . There ARE similarites. SURELY you can recognize that?

No, I guess not.

You don't know enough scientists. They are human.

Science and religion are similar. One just requires a lot more faith.

discovery is ENTIERLY DEPENDANT on there being "unknowns".

you really need to understand this...

solve for X,

it's easy...

-- Modified on 12/9/2007 12:49:30 PM

It's idiot poiticians and profiteers that don't.

unknowns" - well, brilliant.

Science is about discovery. Religion is about ... explanation? based on ... ? whatever ya like?

We are surrounded by the tangible results of science. Or did I just imagine this computer that I am typing on, or the elctric light that is illuminating this room, or the TV that's on in the backround?

C'mon RWU How can we take you seriously when you make statements like that? The proof of science is all around us, religion? Not so much, there is, almost by definition, no proof to religion. That's why they call it faith.

global warming is more a political issue now than a scientific one it seems. There are scientists on both sides, but it's a very politcal game now.

No one set them.

They are as they are.

I never EQUATED religion and science.

Your bent against religion is not allowing you to hear my words. Like noirdream, it's not allowing you to see that there ARE similarities, that's all. Maybe it's your brain. I think it takes a different part of one's brain to appreciate and understand these types of issues. Everyone has different types of talents.

Science isn't perfect, only because it is full of and made up by. . . people. People who can and do make mistakes, people that can and do participate in group think. Over the long haul, the science does "win out" over the people. I didn't define "long haul" and I didn't define "a lot" (of faith).

And you should not thank science for your computer, light bulb and TV as much as you should thank engineering. And yes there IS a difference between the two.

but there are scientists with closed minds (at least publically) regarding man made global warming (and on both sides of the issue).

That some things just "are". They crave the reassurance that someone or something has all the answers. The fact that there are certain things that we just don't know, nor are we ever likely to know, just doesn't set well with them.

I have no problem with another's beliefs. If that's what it takes for them to get through the dark of night, so be it. Where I have to draw the line is when they expect me to bow to their superstitions and try to force feed their dogma.

I used to be understanding and considerate of other's religious feeling and I tried not to offend other's religious sensibilities, but after almost fifty years of being told that Iwas going to burn in ever lasting hell if I didn't not only go along with their fairy tale, but live my life according to their moral standards. I decided that I was the one who should be offended, I've been much less quiet on the subject ever since.

that doesn't mean that science is close minded. As you pointed out, scientists are human, and as such are also imperfect.

No, religion is nothing more than God's social animal called "man"'s attempt to explain, and interact with, the spiritual realm of his environment.

I believe man exists on 3 planes. Pyhsical, mental, and spiritual...and God is the creator, or power behind it all.

Therefore, you'll get no arguement with me whatsoever about "religion" being "manmade"...duh..

What facts do you have? Actually none on either side of the question so your "belief" requires some kind of faith.

"And you should not thank science for your computer, light bulb and TV as much as you should thank engineering. And yes there IS a difference between the two"

Yes I do thank engineering, engineering based on scientific theories and priciples, as opposed to religious theory which would have us living in the stone age.

The only thing I thank religion for, are the untold number of deaths done in the lord's(christian or otherwise) name.

As far as "setting the constants", see my response to noirdream below". I don't require that you stipulate to anything. I was simply suggesting that it be thought about.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY it was directed at BSD NOT YOU.

Where do you get the idea that I got anything that I said from a flat earthers book (I'm assuming you meant the bible)?

You shouldn't take a piece of what I said and then rail against it as if you know who or what I am. It comes across as just as intolerant and condsending as those religious zealots that piss you off. Go back up above and see my responses to you.

This has been surreal. Posting in near simulataneous fashion is not good for proper communication. We disagree in one of these threads only to then agree with each other but is seaprate threads 2 minutes later.

-- Modified on 12/9/2007 2:08:14 PM

but "science" doesn't have a "mind". That's my whole point. Everything in science (like religion) is dependant upon the actions of PEOPLE.

I actually agreed with your point 40 minutes ago.

-- Modified on 12/9/2007 2:10:39 PM

You're doing it again. I never said nor implied that religion should be credited. Why do you do that?

OK, I get it. You hate religion. You hate anything that has anything to do with religion. You hate religoius proselytizing.

Pretty much, I do to.

We probably agree on more than we disagree truth be known, but it was, by and large a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours between football. At any rate we proved that two or more people can disagree without resorting to name calling or personal attacks, no matter how spirited the debate or how volatile a subject.

Does this sum up your perspective on religion?

See above

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=55487&boardID=39&page=

YES!!!

I'd say I'm on the same page w/ you.

I'm asked to be tolerant of others beliefs, and I am. But, I don't have to RESPECT the beliefs as well. I can be tolerant, to take an example, of Romney's Mormonism, but I think the specifics of Mormonism are nonsense and it troubles me that an otherwise intelligent man believes the nonsense, and that he wants to be Prez.

Ultimately, I'm faced with the same with any other candidate, so I have to hope their values guide them rather than their theology.

some say that the freedom that modern christian beliefs provided (ie, freedom to think and consider) actually can be attributed to the reworking of christianity that took place during the Reformation.  While many of the somewhat conservative beliefs still ruled most, there were a few who were liberated by the new dictates of the protestant church....  

While we seem to think that religion is "unchanging" it is in a constant state of flux... ask anyone closely associate with a church.  so?  the thinking that a people could be free certainly did not start with Moses, nor end with Lincoln, there is a connection...  from the past to the present.  examine closely, and you will find that at their core, most religions teach "good stuff" and a most rewarding way to live your life... it is man that interferes with and hijacks those noble purposes.

Which is why Romney scares the living daylights outta me... I've know and worked with too many Mormans.  I know how they treat non-believers of their faith....  

often in science we do not have the correct question  or a sufficient understanding of the variables to even know where to begin...

Take the mystery of Schrodinger's cat....  poor thing... is it dead - or alive.  is the electron here?  or there?  we only know these by probability - and therein lies the limit of the size of a computer... uncertainties at the nanolevel make it certain that quantum mechanics takes over at some minimal distance.  This limits the computer components that can go on a chip.... well?  at least with our current understanding.

We are not at that limit... but the day will come.

Solve for X!  Wow....  but how to do that with a multivarient problem.... my favorite exam questions in physical Chem....

Write the Schrodinger equation for the following molecules..
a) DNA
b) Coco-cola
c) A Big Mac.

If one were to convert the molecules of a whopper into an osmotic fog... it would
a) consume the container it is in.
b) be electrically conductive.
c) be opaque to light
d) taste really bad.

True of false?  
DNA is the same and uses the same code in ALL living organisms.

The Paradigm DNA-> RNA-> protein is invarient and always flows information in that direction.

We cannot excede (on earth) the temperature of the sun.

and so on....   hee hee the last three true false are historically relevant... as they have all been overturned in recent years....

have fun.

is challenged.... while working on one aspect of science I made a discovery that was counter to the prevailing "literature"  took us 10 years to get it published... and I count myself lucky.

some simply never get funding again.

Scientists are close-minded....  very much so....

and guess what, if the constants were changed or if the number of theoretical dimensions were changed... you STILL got a universe that would given time, create a world such as the earth...

but we measure these things... much like we measure the "straightness of a ray" to our ability... but in the space time continum of the universer a ray probably curves on itself? no?  so how does that happen?

as to constants... well, there are virtual particles...

Sure quote the numbers... but what if, someone changed something and everything remained the same relativistically - or to go to Einstein's experiment - approach the speed of light... and as you do so, TIME itself changes....  but you would not know it.... as I say, if you don't like my questions - ask Hawking or Einstein.

i don't have the answer....lol

but what i do know is this,

there is no reality that exists in the material world presently that is new, IOW, the path to replicating DNA was possible BEFORE MULLIS actually cracked the code. The human genome was KNOWABLE prior to the HGP, it just did not reveal itself......

X is the great unknown.

-- Modified on 12/9/2007 5:07:55 PM

ten years may sound like a long time, but when it comes to the church, ten years is the blink of an eye. The church (any church) would have taken centuries, if ever to admit a wrong.

How long did it take for the church to concede that the earth is not the center of the universe?

If you insist a deity set the rules, please demonstrate.

I can't prove a negative, but you'll have to prove a positive

what he did do was to start a company that sells the DNA of famous people locked in jewlery.  How could he do this?  simple, Mullis DID come up with the PCR reaction, a means of replicating a specific sequence of DNA.  

Marshall Nirenberg, Heinrich J. Matthaei, and  Har Gobind Khorana "cracked the genetic code."   More precisely they did experiments that permitted them to determine that three nucleotides told the cellular machinery to use a specific amino acid (out of 20 possibilities) to occupy a specific location in a protein.  This sequence of "codons" (or a series of three nucleotides) corresponds to a "sequence of amino acids" thus providing a "blueprint for life."  

Shortly thereafter Robert Holley figured out the structur of tRNA (the molecule that actually facilitates the codon being translated into an amino acid in protein).  Khorana, Holley and Nirenberg shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work years before Mullis was awarded his in 1993 for the PCR reaction!

Other scientists such as Severo Ochoa (who also won the no bell prize) figured out how the cell made RNA - the intermediary molecule between DNA and protein.  

What is significant is that many of these men worked in both the academic and corporate worlds.... proving that quality science can be done in both.

As far as the HGP project goes, what is important is that until the significace of the codon was understood, there was little information that could be gleaned from sequencing DNA.  However, once that was known, the techniques necessary to sequence DNA had to be worked out, and certainly the PCR technique helped... but so did the discovery of reverse transcriptase...  discovered by Temin, Baltimore and Dulbecco (yet another no bell team)  All this was not in place until the 80's! thus making it possible to sequence DNA.  The significance of reverse transcriptase is that it permits genetic information to go from RNA to DNA!  hence retroviruses (ya know?  HIV)

What is important is that the sequence of DNA tell us 1) how proteins are made and their composition but also 2) how the synthesis of proteins is regulated....  (see the work of genuises such as Rober Tjian of Berkely for his work on transcription factors).....

sheese.... amateur scientists.... Do I know any of these players?  ya betcha.




-- Modified on 12/10/2007 6:48:57 AM

mullis "cracked the code" on replication...

I read these some time ago.  and Don't quite remember where I read the thought experiments.  It might have been in "a brief history of time" by Hawking.... but then again probably not.

anyhoo the wiki reference should get you started.

specific meaning - and the more precise way to state what you intended would be "Mullis discovered how to replicate DNA without cell division"  cracking codes means how to find meaning in a seemingly random listing of symbols

i told you i'm a dumbass...lol

Ah, but I did NOT insist on a deity doing anything, so therefore there is nothing to demonstrate.

Please re-read what I wrote. I can understand though how you might think that I implied the actions of a deity.

But then I also concluded that there were NO facts to support the implication (nor any to refute it either).

Without "some" kind of faith leaning either pro or con one is only left with Agnosticism. And that place is far too lonely for both myself and Atheists.

while I often refer to myself as an atheist, and I despise "organized" religion as much as anyone I know, I am actually an agnostic not an atheist.

Believing with "certainty",without proof to the contrary, that there is no God, seems to make as much sense to me as believing with "certainty" again without proof, that there is one.

I cannot say with certainty that there is no god, but the chances of any of "one" the known religions actually getting it right, which of course would mean all the other religions would have to have got it wrong, seem astronomical to me.

and you and i see things closer than many who profess to "believe"

what if, instead of one being "right" and all others being "wrong"

could you consider that none of them have it exactly right nor wrong, but rather that becasue "they" ("they" being honest practoioners as opposed to the religo-hustlers) are human, and therfore fallible, that their religous tenets and apporoaches are just they're own "best guesses" at describing, or interacting with, that which defies description.

It is the    CERTITUDE    of the goosestepping atheist and Biblethumper that I just repel from