My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_SteelHead]

Frank, no matter how you label it ... the interaction of masses is described as


That is how it is interpreted. It will be that for anyone who cares to re evaluate the interaction . It can be independently and repeatedly verified.

[_Franktalk]

Frank, no matter how you label it ... the interaction of masses is described as


That is how it is interpreted. It will be that for anyone who cares to re evaluate the interaction . It can be independently and repeatedly verified.

You really should have used another equation.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/ ... 1030a.html

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/fcdc/upl ... osal-2.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/bigG

[_jo1952]

I'm sorry, jo1952. All you have really demonstrated in your last post is your abject ignorance and contempt for the scientific process and how it really works. It is not nearly as self-limiting as you suggest. Nor are scientists as stubbornly opposed to new ideas and insights and ideas that honestly challenge what we now know or think we know as you think they are. In fact, scientists who reject out of hand and/or do not eagerly look forward to examining new evidence that challenges what they now know are not doing science correctly and don't deserve the appellation "scientist." Lawrence Krauss is one of the best explainers of this and how science actually works. here is another discussion about the hypothetical "limits" of science. It seems to me that there is really no approach to discerning actual reality less limiting or more honest than properly and honestly applied science. Unlike most religions, science allows for the possibility of being mistaken and having to reevaluate even one's most deeply held convictions.

No one I know explains the importance and the contributions of science than Neil deGrasse Tyson. His Cosmos series, now available on Netflix, was more enlightening and inspiring to me than anything I ever learned from religion. I strongly urge you to watch the whole series.

I never said that science wasn't making improvements on quality of life or the usefulness of progressing technology. What I see is that you and SteelHead and many others ignore what I have said about technology and the possibilities that progress allows us to imagine concerning another option of what is going on here. You are so focused on what you will allow yourselves to believe...in accordance with what your new religion (science...which replaced theology for many)...that you are doing the same thing that religionists do. They can't see outside of what the learned of their beliefs teach them....i.e., what the world teaches them.

You also don't seem to feel the need to address what Einstein had to say about seriously studying science....that those who do will recognize that there IS something "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man". By doing so, it places what you believe about science into a questionable state....that same state which Einstein identified as not being a serious study of science. So, while you also place my beliefs into a category of ignorance, your own unwillingness to allow for "some spirit....." causes me to question your credibility. My belief that there IS such a presence is being equated into a belief in "aliens" according to SteelHead. This, even though I have used science's own technological advancements to help present my new belief. So, one would wonder, what is SteelHead's---or your----interpretation of what the vastly superior spirit looked like which Einstein was talking about? Is it ethereal, is it physical, is it alien...what? Einstein isn't here to answer those questions. However, it IS possible to ask you and SteelHead and others why they don't allow themselves to believe within the parameters identified by Einstein (even though the details are missing).

Most of what many posters on this website have said they believe about science is evidence they have abandoned the possibility of something going on as described by Einstein. Einstein thought that those who didn't believe in some spirit weren't actually seriously pursuing science. Inasmuch as he also said, “In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.”, it could easily be reasoned that Einstein would feel that those in science who don't believe that there is something else going on, are also naïve.

While you claim that my comments show my ignorance of what science is teaching, I see your argument against me as being filled with cognitive dissonance. Many who cling to religion also suffer from this. Science believers point to the religious and marvel at how they are blind to their cognitive dissonance. The religious will go through all types of mental gymnastics to show others how their religion does not have any holes. The same is true of those who love science. While I am not saying that science is a negative, I AM saying that those who place their faith and belief into science, do the same mental gymnastics in order to avoid allowing themselves to see the holes. It is the consequences which concern me. Because mankind loves to cling to belief systems, they also wind up treating those who don't agree with them poorly. Just see all of the hate and anger and mocking taking place on this board toward the religious.

Also, because of our love of our belief systems, and the rules and laws we create surrounding them, we become blind and deaf to any other possibilities. As such, our beliefs hold us back from...and draw our attention away from...being able to see and hear another possibility of what is really going on here. An example is the very argument being had against the possibility I have presented. Instead of looking at the possibility and discussing it, it is being dismissed...I am being called ignorant, and my belief has been tagged with the mocking description as a belief in "aliens".

[Guest]

Frank, no matter how you label it ... the interaction of masses is described as


That is how it is interpreted. It will be that for anyone who cares to re evaluate the interaction . It can be independently and repeatedly verified.

You really should have used another equation.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/ ... 1030a.html

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/fcdc/upl ... osal-2.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/bigG

Nonsense! There is still agreement that the gravitational constant is close to 6.67 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2. The disagreement between the values listed is less than 0.003% of the agreed upon value. Whatever the exact value of the gravitational constant happens to be, Newton's gravitational equation is still perfectly valid. We still know the gravitational constant with more than enough precision to accurately place geosynchronous satellites in orbit and send our space probes to the desired destination in the solar system. Still further refinement of the exact value of G will not change that fact.

[Guest]

The equation is fine, G represents a constant in an equation. Quibbling over the 42nd degree of the constant is consistent with the process. But, the force is determined by the masses and the distance.

[_Gunnar]

The equation if fine, G represents a constant in an equation. Quibbling over the 42nd degree of the constant is consistent with the process. But, the force is determined by the masses and the distance.

Exactly! Franktalk is grasping at the flimsiest of straws to support his extremely flawed and untenable point.

[Guest]

There is no such thing a correct interpretation of scripture. As you and Jo demonstrate they mean whatever one wants them to mean.

Aliens!

Then there is no correct way to interpret the forces of nature. One can believe that scientific systems progress towards truth or they don't. One can believe that religious interpretation of the scriptures moves towards truth or they don't.

It is still a belief system no matter which camp you are in.

More nonsense! The undeniable fact that we can successfully and predictably design and build structures and machines that perform as predicted by our current theories and knowledge demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that our current interpretations of the forces of nature are more than correct enough for our current needs and purposes. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reliable means of resolving the widely variant interpretations of scripture to everyone's satisfaction. There is no more unreliable way to discern truth than reliance on faith in supposedly divinely revealed scripture or revelation, no matter what the claimed source of such revelation or scripture.

[_Franktalk]

Nonsense! There is still agreement that the gravitational constant is close to 6.67 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Love this comment.

[_SteelHead]

Religious science naysayers poo pooing science on a medium entirely derived by science.


The irony.

[_Franktalk]

More nonsense! The undeniable fact that we can successfully and predictably design and build structures and machines that perform as predicted by our current theories and knowledge demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that our current interpretation of the forces of nature are more than correct enough for our current needs and purposes.

I need a teleportation device and an interdimensional portal. Science has not satisfied my needs. I think you have set the bar way too low. There are others who have limited their technology as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdWt4crKvo