ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Franktalk]

Pehr Granqvist and his team debunked Persinger's results several years ago. I am inclined to believe the latter is a modern day glass-looker.

Milesius,

If you are arguing from the point of a religionist or faithful members of the LDS Church, then the findings you cite make things even worse for your case. They suggest that these perceptions of a divine or supernatural presence can be induced by mere suggestion followed by some sham treatment.

This is exactly what religion is, strong suggestion (preaching) followed by a ritual treatment or a sham treatment (there is really no distinction when it comes to religion).

Can't believe that someone who thought about this for a few minutes wouldn't see the implications for religion.

Then again, perhaps you did see the implications and are not arguing as a religionist, I don't know.

But it cuts both ways. Men are weak and are easily led. This applies to all areas of thought. So in this state of weakness you wish to tell me that some theories of science somehow transcend that issue and are rock solid. I am sorry but that does not work. As long as the theories are not tied to repeatable experiments then the weakness of man and pride of man will prevail. I accept that many in religion have been taken in by some cleaver talker. But you fail to realize that you to have been led astray. In a hundred years men of science will look back and wonder how the men of today could have believed all of nonsense published in science books.

[_Chap]

But it cuts both ways..

Does it, then? So why can't we edit the rest of your post, which currently runs as follows:

Men are weak and are easily led. This applies to all areas of thought. So in this state of weakness you wish to tell me that some theories of science somehow transcend that issue and are rock solid. I am sorry but that does not work. As long as the theories are not tied to repeatable experiments then the weakness of man and pride of man will prevail. I accept that many in religion have been taken in by some cleaver talker. But you fail to realize that you to have been led astray. In a hundred years men of science will look back and wonder how the men of today could have believed all of nonsense published in science books.

And instead say:

Men are weak and are easily led. This applies to all areas of thought. So in this state of weakness you wish to tell me that some theories of religion somehow transcend that issue and are rock solid. I am sorry but that does not work. As long as the theories are not tied to repeatable experiments then the weakness of man and pride of man will prevail. .... But you fail to realize that you to have been led astray.

As for this bit:

In a hundred years men of science will look back and wonder how the men of today could have believed all of nonsense published in science books.

No they won't, if we judge by the very large elements in scientific theories that were established a hundred years ago that are still used today: I have demonstrated that in an earlier post.

By the way, your contention that the scientific community generally regards older but non-current theories dating from within the period when modern scientific institutions were established as 'nonsense' is incorrect, and appears to be based on the kind of thing you find in old-fashioned popularizations of the history of science.

Newtonian dynamics (for instance) is no longer regarded as completely accurate when high speeds and large masses are involved: the best kind of dynamics we have today is definitely relativistic. But all physics and engineering students continue to study, respect, and make frequent use of Newtonian dynamics - it is simply that they are also taught to be aware of its limitations. In teaching the physics of the atom, many science teachers will lead their students through the dynamics of the obsolete 'sun and planets' model of electrons orbiting the nucleus which replaced the pre-Rutherford 'plum-pudding' model - not to mock either of them as 'nonsense', but to lead students to perceive the problems that led to physicists developing different models of how electrons exist in atoms.

Science no doubt has its limitations, and our access to truth must always be regarded as provisional and subject to improvement as we learn more. But the enterprise of science has turned out to be, generally speaking, the best method that the human race has discovered for generating highly reliable and what is more cumulative knowledge about the world we live in. Don't you agree?

Do you think any religion in the world (and there are so many, often quite incompatible with one another) comes anywhere close to that record of success?

[_Some Schmo]

This thread provides a classic example of why it takes incredible mental fortitude and discipline to not dismiss all religiously influenced people as total morons. They're sure asking for it here.

[Guest]

What is really scary is that there are individuals seriously seeking the highest office in the land who believe (or at least claim to believe) much as Hoops and Franktalk do.

Such people should not be relied on when it comes to making decisions that require logical thought and determination of weight of evidence, since as has been clearly demonstrated by Hoops and Franktalk here, such individuals are simply not equipped, ignorant of the evidence required, or simply unwilling to do so.

This is why the Founding Fathers strove to keep religion out of politics. With each passing year, however, it looks more and more as if their wisdom and insight, and their clear vision of how the country should be governed, is being ignored by religionists.

[_huckelberry]

Explain without a miracle, divine intervention or magic, how a the ecology of the planet rebounds after being destroyed. The Earth was under water for around 100 days, how there is any eco-systems left once they disembark? The Bible very explicitly states that all terrestrial life was destroyed "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

And don't tell me that it was a local flood. That is not supported by the narrative.

Please explain without my "typical" answer of magic, how the ecology of the planet recovers sufficiently to support life, to the point that within 150 or so years there are enough people to build a massive tower reaching for the heavens.

Also please explain how there is not a piece of geographical evidence to support a global flood. There should be a readily apparent global wide band of dead stuff demonstrable to have occurred in the last 10K years.

.

I am puzzled by these questions. The story clearly says the flood was a miraculous act of God. Why in the world would one look for a completely naturalistic explaination for the earths recovery? Being a bit more naturalistic, why would one expect a layer of dead stuff to survive? it would rot and be absorbed into the soil. (I take the story to be story not something that I see much basis to thnk actually happened)

[_SteelHead]

Huckleberry,
There are numerous mass extinction events evident in the geological record. When huge masses of living organisms simultaneously die they create a strata layer. Why would this mass extinction be any different? Floods also create a marked sediment layer and the sediment layer from a recent global flood should be readily apparent, not too far down, and nearly universally present.

If the answer is the flood occured and God cleaned up the mess to the point that there is no evidence for it, then prove to me that a flood did not occur last Friday to which God just cleaned up after and modified our memories. A mass extinction and global cataclysm to the extent of the flood of Noah should leave a geological imprint. It either didn't happen or God is hiding the evidence. Take your pick.

[Guest]

I am puzzled by these questions. The story clearly says the flood was a miraculous act of God. Why in the world would one look for a completely naturalistic explaination for the earths recovery? Being a bit more naturalistic, why would one expect a layer of dead stuff to survive? it would rot and be absorbed into the soil. (I take the story to be story not something that I see much basis to thnk actually happened)

What puzzles me is that you believe that something which could only be attributed to a "miraculous act of God" could ever happen at all.

In fact, I am confident that you could not name one event that has been shown to have actually occurred, which could only be attributed to a "miraculous act of God".

[_Hoops]

I think you're forgetting that the plants (I'm assuming that you're arguing Global) would have had to survive in SALT water, Hoops.

No, the wouldn't. Not necessarily anyway. When salt and fresh water meet, often they don't mix at all.

[_Hoops]

It's amazing how wrong you can be in such a short bit of writing.

What is really scary is that there are individuals seriously seeking the highest office in the land who believe (or at least claim to believe) much as Hoops and Franktalk do.

Evidence. Evidence from those seeking the highest office and evidence that you have any idea what I believe.

Such people should not be relied on when it comes to making decisions that require logical thought and determination of weight of evidence,

Yes, let's have robots and computers run for office. That would work much better. Your assertion is beyond silly.

since as has been clearly demonstrated by Hoops and Franktalk here, such individuals are simply not equipped,

We just ain't a smart as you. We get it. You say it in every thread in which you participate.

ignorant of the evidence required,

Your arrogance is overwhelming. Ignorant of the evidence for what?

or simply unwilling to do so.

Or maybe there's another option.

This is why the Founding Fathers strove to keep religion out of politics.

I suppose as you've stated it here, you might have an argument. But were you to claim that they strove to keep God out of politics, then that's just simply wrong.

With each passing year, however, it looks more and more as if their wisdom and insight, and their clear vision of how the country should be governed, is being ignored by religionists.

What a load of cow dung. Evidence please.

[_keithb]

I think you're forgetting that the plants (I'm assuming that you're arguing Global) would have had to survive in SALT water, Hoops.

No, the wouldn't. Not necessarily anyway. When salt and fresh water meet, often they don't mix at all.

Um ....

Wow.

Just wow.

Not only is that a completely ignorant thing to say, but it's something that you can disprove in your kitchen.

Seriously Hoops, you're a brilliant troll, right? I mean, you don't actually believe this stuff, correct?