Science Silliness

[_Sophocles]

I think that Josh is saying that the fact that spinal manipulation can yield positive results does not imply that subluxation (the pseudoscience that gave rise to chiropractic) is real.

Kind of like how the fact that going to church may yield positive results in a person's life does not necessarily mean that whatever deity that church worships is real.

[_jskains]

[quote="Bond James Bond
You believe chiropractor is spelled "ciropractor"? Oh wait you think scientists think science can cure all ills in the world. Well scientists are actively at work trying to solve many problems through improved technology by creating plants that yield more food as well as cures for illusive diseases. The bigger question is if in your analogy chiropractors=scientists then does religion=problems, issues, and disease?[/quote]

Like I said. Without childish retorts. An impossibility here.

JMS

[_Darth J]

Does skains think all science is silly? What about the medicine that will keep him sexually active long after his normal sex drive dries up? What about the broadband internet that gives him instant access to the millions of porn videos on the Internet that could help him more effectively use that erectile dysfunction medicine? What about the breakthroughs in military technology that will protect him while he does or doesn't avidly watch that porn? What about the central air conditioning and insulation that keeps him warm or cold year round while he does or doesn't watch that plethora of porn? Is the science that created all that technology silly? Or really does he just have a problem with tiny segment of scientists who are doing research that questions how the Universe came into being without resorting to 3000 year old nomadic myths?

Ciropractic care is a good thing. It helps fix issues related to the back. But there are some ciropractors who take it too far. They believe their work will cure all problems, fix all issues, and rid you of any disease.

I'll let you figure out what I believe from that statement. I wonder if you can respond seriously, without a childish retort.

I think it's about where Joshua conflated chiropractic with science that childish retorts became moot.

[_Darth J]

Joshua:

Do you believe that chemistry and alchemy should both be presented in public schools, in order to "teach the controversy"?

[_just me]

Everyone knows that all the world needs for healing of disease is to rub a little olive oil in the scalp and chant a prayer over the person while touching their head!

DUH!

[_Bond James Bond]

[quote="Bond James Bond]
You believe chiropractor is spelled "ciropractor"? Oh wait you think scientists think science can cure all ills in the world. Well scientists are actively at work trying to solve many problems through improved technology by creating plants that yield more food as well as cures for illusive diseases. The bigger question is if in your analogy chiropractors=scientists then does religion=problems, issues, and disease?[/quote]

Like I said. Without childish retorts. An impossibility here.

JMS[/quote]

Your whole premise is childish and folds like a .49$ birthday card. You just can't accept that scientific knowledge chips away at Christian myths.

[_jskains]

[quote="Bond James Bond]
You believe chiropractor is spelled "ciropractor"? Oh wait you think scientists think science can cure all ills in the world. Well scientists are actively at work trying to solve many problems through improved technology by creating plants that yield more food as well as cures for illusive diseases. The bigger question is if in your analogy chiropractors=scientists then does religion=problems, issues, and disease?[/quote]

Like I said. Without childish retorts. An impossibility here.

JMS[/quote][/quote]

Your whole premise is childish and folds like a .49$ birthday card. You just can't accept that scientific knowledge chips away at Christian myths.[/quote]

Your mom.

JMS

[_Mercury]

You are an imbecile.

[_lulu]

Does skains think all science is silly? What about the medicine that will keep him sexually active long after his normal sex drive dries up? What about the broadband internet that gives him instant access to the millions of porn videos on the Internet that could help him more effectively use that erectile dysfunction medicine? What about the breakthroughs in military technology that will protect him while he does or doesn't avidly watch that porn? What about the central air conditioning and insulation that keeps him warm or cold year round while he does or doesn't watch that plethora of porn? Is the science that created all that technology silly? Or really does he just have a problem with tiny segment of scientists who are doing research that questions how the Universe came into being without resorting to 3000 year old nomadic myths?

God revealed these things to scientists to further the work of the church, especially that part about jskains sex drive.

Someone wasn't listening in Sunday School

[_keithb]

jskains,

There are literally tens of thousands of scientific journals full of carefully researched and written studies that support the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, stellar evolution, etc. Just because you don't understand these articles doesn't mean that they aren't valid. However, I'll give you a chance to allow your voice into the mix.

Below is sample text from a paper detailing the Casimir effect -- a strong experimental confirmation of the virtual particle states that you seemed to object so strongly to in your OP. I could find hundreds of similar papers talking about different aspects of this same thing.

If you could be so kind, please point out the places where you feel the authors are in error.

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.085014

We present a general procedure for calculating one-loop ‘‘Casimir’’ energy densities for a scalar field
coupled to a fixed potential in renormalized quantum field theory. We implement direct subtraction of counterterms
computed precisely in dimensional regularization with a definite renormalization scheme. Our procedure
allows us to test quantum field theory energy conditions in the presence of background potentials spherically
symmetric in some dimensions and independent of others. We explicitly calculate the energy density for
several examples. For a square barrier, we find that the energy is negative and divergent outside the barrier, but
there is a compensating divergent positive contribution near the barrier on the inside. We also carry out
calculations with exactly solvable sech2 potentials, which arise in the study of solitons and domain walls.

Actually, could you please first explain the Casimir effect, just to make sure that we're on the same page? Explain it not in general but in the specific mathematical language that they would use in an article like the one I cited above.

I would copy excerpts from the whole article, but I can't get the equations to render on this message board correctly, and I don't feel like re-typing them in pseudo-Latex format.