Spelling

[Old Koreelah]

I am disturbed, GG, that you have interpreted my post in this way. I am quite aware of the vast contribution of good Christians (and good people of other faiths) to science. As an educator I also did my best to ensure this got across to my students.

 

What I was referring to was the deeply anti-science stance of several new churches- here, and particularly in the USA.

 

I have considerable experience of this among friends and family members.

 

[ATTACH]47401._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[M61A1]

There used to be an underwater basket weaving course but no one seemed to want to employ anyone with a certificate in that qualification. I don't think it is on offer any more.

I'm fairly certain that the "underwater basket weaving" course is commonly used by children no longer eligible for Child Support under normal circumstances (over 18), to receive payments from a parent (normally the one who hasn't been allowed to be part of their life), up until the age of 28 years.

[coljones]

Let's start with a conjunction - because I can.

 

And why would anyone take the view that becoming a LAME or L1 to 4 is any more beneficial than becoming a Nail Technician or an Underwater Basket Weaver. These jobs, and the attendant qualifications, are vital to a certain sector of the population, society and the economy in the same way that Priests are to the religious, Lawn Mower Mechanics to the neat and tidy and LAMEs and L2s to the ill-begotten idle who sit around praying for a flying kind of day (whilst plotting revolution and counter revolution in RAA). Any training is better than no training and any job is better than none. But I wish they would learn more maths and science.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

What I was referring to was the deeply anti-science stance of several new churches- here, and particularly in the USA.

As you have offered no evidence to support this claim I remain thinking that it is just based on bigotry. The article you posted above has zero to do with any churches, suggest you try the public school system (also the excessive welfare system that removes incentive).

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As you have offered no evidence to support this claim I remain thinking that it is just based on bigotry. The article you posted above has zero to do with any churches, suggest you try the public school system (also the excessive welfare system that removes incentive).

Oh Dear, GG. This is my first experience of being called a bigot. Your rant against the public school system sounds a little bigoted to me.

 

The article I posted was meant to support Col's point about trends in scientific literacy- I was not trying to blame churches.

 

Evidence you want? Look around you at the anti-evolution campaign by those who believe the world is only about 6,000 years old.

 

If you had come with me to several gatherings of particular Christian groups, you would have heard amazingly ignorant statements from people who should know better.

 

One influential elder pointed to the wide alluvial plains outside and claimed it was proof of The Great Flood.

 

(I was too polite to point out that deep under that soil are several layers of coal and probably fossils from the Age of the Dinosaurs.)

 

 

[coljones]

And the thing that really grates with me is the fact that all (except maybe the church journals) indulge the readers with publication of astrology and crackpot theories. We, of course, are frequently regaled with the casting of chicken guts, such is the lack of depth of research, by News Corp so-called journos, and radio commentators that adds nothing to the debate but brings a degree of confusion which leads to "chicken little" or bravado - none of which can be backed by reason or facts.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

he could have created the perfect definition of religion: "It's a market, a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one," Tony Abbott

 

 

[facthunter]

Where FACTS don't exist a belief will be substituted in a society. If you are mucking around with aeroplanes, the more facts you have the better your results will be. You can believe (hope?) that something is right or you can check IF it is. with planes and with things in general. It's your choice how you run the race. Nev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

One influential elder pointed to the wide alluvial plains outside and claimed it was proof of The Great Flood.(I was too polite to point out that deep under that soil are several layers of coal and probably fossils from the Age of the Dinosaurs.)

As a matter of fact like the elder when I see seashells in central Australia or fossils buried deep under sediment I also believe this is evidence that there was a flood that caused this - a very large one or possibly more than one flood. You don't think there was? That's fine by me but the difference is I wouldn't call you anti-scientific, perhaps you haven't gotten around to objectively examining all the evidence yet. As for evolution personally I hold to the well established and clearly observable 2nd law of thermodynamics. The famous scientists I mentioned (and many others) believed in creation yet you infer anyone who holds this must be unscientific. All the churches I know that teach biblical creation are also very big into examining evolution theory, seems scientific to me to examine and test all theories not to block your ears to alternative views. That would be belief by faith.

 

I find many who hold dearly to evolution theory have not even read Darwin's book, they just believe the theory because that's what they were taught and it is somehow comforting to not be confronted with an alternative view. (Darwin BTW was a real scientist who himself postulated that his theory would only stand on the observation of transitional fossil evidence which he said should be the great majority numerically; not one species-transitional fossil has yet been found.)

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

?..when I see seashells in central Australia or fossils buried deep under sediment I also believe this is evidence that there was a flood that caused this - a very large one or possibly more than one flood. You don't think there was? That's fine by me but the difference is I wouldn't call you anti-scientific, perhaps you haven't gotten around to objectively examining all the evidence yet...

This one made more sense, GG but I am offended by the assumptions you continue to make about me.

 

Of course there have been floods; big ones and with regularity over time scales that couldn't have been imagined a few thousand years ago when the holy books were written.

 

 

[skeptic36]

Sign on the back of the door were I'm staying tonight

 

[ATTACH]47402._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Oops, it is the right way up at least:blush:

 

[M61A1]

One error I hear/see regularly is "you can't do that", when what they really mean is "you're not allowed to do that".

 

The laws of physics determine what you can or can't do....the laws of men determine what you're not allowed to do. Often the two are very different. When some says 'you can't do that", I see it as a challenge to prove that you can ( I make sure physics says I can first).

 

 

[eightyknots]

Good bigoted point you made there against your own argument. Many of the fathers of modern science & mathematics were Christians (eg Newton, Bacon, Kepler, Boyle) and the university system itself was started by Christians as were most of the most prominent universities today (Yale, Oxford, Harvard, Princeton - all started by Christian or church groups). If people like you that are ignorant of western culture and history are teaching young people then why the surprise they also often turn out the same? I suspect you like modern (pseudo) science - belief in concepts established by consensus & majority vote right?

Other scientists that come to mind who were christians:

 

Michael Faraday - considered the "father" of electricity and (according to Wikipedia) was “one of the most influential scientists in history”

 

James Clerk Maxwell - an important 19th century physicist (dealing with light and electromagnetism) who had enormous influence on 20th century physics.

 

Sir John Fleming - invented the thermionic valve (known as tubes or toobs in North America);only older people remember them as they have been replaced by solid state devices.

 

 

[eightyknots]

 

As a matter of fact like the elder when I see seashells in central Australia or fossils buried deep under sediment I also believe this is evidence that there was a flood that caused this - a very large one or possibly more than one flood. You don't think there was? That's fine by me but the difference is I wouldn't call you anti-scientific, perhaps you haven't gotten around to objectively examining all the evidence yet. As for evolution personally I hold to the well established and clearly observable 2nd law of thermodynamics. The famous scientists I mentioned (and many others) believed in creation yet you infer anyone who holds this must be unscientific. All the churches I know that teach biblical creation are also very big into examining evolution theory, seems scientific to me to examine and test all theories not to block your ears to alternative views. That would be belief by faith.

It is important to not allow evolution to become a Belief System without looking at all plausible theories for the explanation of the origin of the earth.

 

 

 

I find many who hold dearly to evolution theory have not even read Darwin's book, they just believe the theory because that's what they were taught and it is somehow comforting to not be confronted with an alternative view. (Darwin BTW was a real scientist who himself postulated that his theory would only stand on the observation of transitional fossil evidence which he said should be the great majority numerically; not one species-transitional fossil has yet been found.)

 

 

Yes, the “missing link” (or mid-species) fossils should be in abundance but have not yet been found and I believe will not be found.

 

 

[facthunter]

The Science of genetics will explain many things. All life forms are remarkable whether simple or complex. The older the more complex. The more time allowed in the process the more amazing it can become and we are talking of much more than 6,300 years which is really only yesterday. The most likely estimate of aboriginal existence in Australia is about 48,000 years which is still short compared with the age of the universe. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

The Science of genetics will explain many things. All life forms are remarkable whether simple or complex. The older the more complex. The more time allowed in the process the more amazing it can become and we are talking of much more than 6,300 years which is really only yesterday. The most likely estimate of aboriginal existence in Australia is about 48,000 years which is still short compared with the age of the universe. Nev

I thought this was an interesting perspective.

 

[eightyknots]

I thought this was an interesting perspective.

When I was young, nearly all fairy tales started with "Once Upon A Time ........".

 

With all due respects, M61A1, that clip was an interesting animation but sounded very little different from the 'Once Upon A Time' stories . There was no evidence given for any of the assertions throughout the clip.

 

 

[eightyknots]

How's this for an explanation of the strangeness of the English language?

 

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,

 

But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.

 

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,

 

Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

 

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,

 

Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

 

If the plural of man is always called men,

 

Then shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

 

If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,

 

And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

 

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,

 

Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

 

Then one may be that, and three would be those,

 

Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,

 

And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

 

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,

 

But though we say mother, we never say methren.

 

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,

 

But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim! Let's face it - English is a crazy language.

 

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;

 

neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

 

English muffins weren't invented in England .

 

We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,

 

We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,

 

And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,

 

Grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

 

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.

 

If you have a bunch of odds and ends

 

And get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?

 

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

 

Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English

 

Should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

 

We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.

 

We have noses that run and feet that smell.

 

We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.

 

And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,

 

While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language

 

In which your house can burn up as it burns down,

 

In which you fill in a form by filling it out,

 

And in which an alarm goes off by going on. And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop? And if people from Poland are called Poles

 

Then people from Holland should be Holes

 

And the Germans, Germs. And let's not forget the Americans, who changed s to z, but that's another story.

 

 

[facthunter]

Some people are prepared to consider emerging "considerations" I won't call them facts. Others already have an answer for almost everything. Down through the ages of the recorded history of modern man, the "others" above have resisted change . Their position has often been hard to justify in the light of experience and further knowledge. We currently live in an age where there is an unprecedented amount of information available. No scientist professes to know it ALL. Today they tend to feel the more that is found out, the more there is left to find out. Nothing is as simple as it may seem. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Today they tend to feel the more that is found out, the more there is left to find out. Nothing is as simple as it may seem. Nev

I agree with that. All theories should be tested by the wheelbarrow loads of evidence that comes to light on a regular basis. No scientist, and no person, should have such a faith in a Belief System, that they cannot test ALL scientific theories by the evidence. Such a notion would go against the whole basis of science.

 

Nevertheless, more scientists than ever have succumbed to the 'close our minds to other theories' trap.

 

 

[facthunter]

They may be parochial 80K and they are human after all and some are corrupt ( fake the tests or steal others experiments or worse, deliberately bring out quasi scientific "facts" for deceptive purposes)

 

Any TRUE scientist would expect his theories /hypothesis./ conclusions to be tested. They have to withstand a discipline test of provability. False or FAKE scientists are generally loudly condemned by their peer group but their "findings" are often trumpeted widely as real counter evidence by people who would profit by it It is like fake medicines. Plenty around. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I would have thought that Humans and Chimpanzees sharing 98.5 percent of their DNA was enough proof that humans (and Chimpanzees) have evolved over time from the same common ancestor.

 

 

[facthunter]

Might show that it is not always an improvement. Actually evolution does not always show an improvement as the changes to Humans may be a result of chemicals , pollution etc won't be an improvement .DNA damage is an evolutionary result. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I would have thought that Humans and Chimpanzees sharing 98.5 percent of their DNA was enough proof that humans (and Chimpanzees) have evolved over time from the same common ancestor.

 

or god put human DNA into chimps DNA to test your faith, like how he buried dinosaur bones.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

ha ha ha you are making a joke ? Right?