Gnarly Gnu Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 An agnostic is someone without faith Nev. An atheist believes by faith that there is no God. It is commonly tied to believe in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution hypothesis as in #344 (neither of which have been scientifically verified, hence by faith). But back on topic - I understand the actual number of refugees arriving will be similar just that the means is no longer dictated by people smugglers bringing wealthy economic migrants. This is good news IMO and I can't see why any person of integrity that wanted to help genuine refugees would be unhappy about this.
metalman Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Atheism cannot be a FAITH let alone a dangerous one. An atheist is someone with no INVISIBLE means of support. Nev Yeh I know I said no more from me but this has taken an interesting turn, As one who was brought up to be atheist, then finding a faith of sorts, then getting disillusioned with religion, now I'm probably a bit of a mongrel with a strong cynicism streak! I could never get the whole religion has killed more than anything else chant, I always saw it as forcing ones ideology onto another,,,,the Catholics did it early in the piece ,then the Protestants ,after a horrible persecution turned around and did the same sh1t to the catholics ,the early explorers did awful stuff to the people they found/discovered , we've had horrific wars fought for all reasons ,communism ,naziism ,socialism, ethnic cleansing have all does their part in culling the population and now it's the Muslims turn, but the bottom line is someone either has something you want ,or doesn't agree to bow down to whatever deity you've chosen, or comes from "over there" and must be changed or dealt with some how, religion is convenient but the problem is in us ,and it's incurable, we are no different to the people 2000 years ago, we just think we are, given the right circumstances humanity will commit the worst offences , Germany in the 1930-40 wasn't a country full of monsters ,but when restraint was removed the population did terrible things( or consented) . I see Islam rising up over the next few decades and becoming a mirror of its maker ( the Roman Catholic Church founded it) ,it'll be a monster for a time then something else will come along ( Scientology perhaps :0,plenty of bucks!) and have a go , but really the problem is in the mob ,and it's hard wired, AND, just cause your all warm n fuzzy n green , given the right push everyone will harm others in the name of there ideology , Matty Ps , interesting to see the navy doing exactly what the ALP said could NEVER be done ,,,,
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Look at the history of Christian sectarian violence in the 20th Century, Lutherans (Germans) versus Catholics (French, Belgium, Dutch) versus Roman Catholic(Austrians, Italians) versus Anglicans (English, Welsh, Scots) versus Protestants (Americans, Canadians) versus Othrodox (Greeks, Russians). 60M killed, Europe left in a ruins, potential nuclear war. Christianity is a peaceful religion only because its bloody history.
Marty_d Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 An agnostic is someone without faith Nev. An atheist believes by faith that there is no God. It is commonly tied to believe in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution hypothesis as in #344 (neither of which have been scientifically verified, hence by faith). But back on topic - I understand the actual number of refugees arriving will be similar just that the means is no longer dictated by people smugglers bringing wealthy economic migrants. This is good news IMO and I can't see why any person of integrity that wanted to help genuine refugees would be unhappy about this. I wasn't going to say anything else either MM, but Gnu's post has a few errors that need correcting. I'm not much into labels so call me an atheist or an agnostic, I don't care. What proves something is real to me is objective evidence and Occam's razor. By the way, by calling evolution a "hypothesis" you're misnaming it. A hypothesis is a case a scientist sets out to prove. Evolution is a theory, which in scientific terms is a hypothesis that has been supported by testing and evidence. A scientific theory is for all intents and purposes a proven fact until it is overthown by contrary evidence. Evolution has been scientifically verified by observation and experiment ever since Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin presented their findings in 1858. This is science's strength and religion's weakness - science is always happy to be proved wrong, because science seeks facts. Religion sets out a point of view and accepts no evidence to the contrary. When you say "An atheist believes by faith that there is no God" you're making a generalisation. Some may, others (like myself) just haven't seen any evidence for the existence of a deity. "Faith" is simply believing something for which there is no supporting evidence. If you want to get nit-picky you could argue your statement is valid because there is no evidence of a lack of god - but this is where Occam's razor comes into it. Simply put, this rule of thumb is that given any two explanations, the simplest is more likely to be the correct. So we have planet that has evolved many forms of life in growing orders of complexity, approximately 4.5 billion years old, in a universe approximately 13.8 billion years old, and rigorous scientific testing (including genetic discoveries which bear out Darwin & Wallace's original theories) tell us that life evolved to eventually form creatures intelligent enough to argue over their origins. The question to run the razor over is: Is this result more likely to be a sequence of random events over unimaginably large amounts of time, OR did an omniscient, omnipotent invisible being create the lot, (without any explanation of where it came from itself), jigger it at the molecular level to make it appear far older than it is, then whisper in the ear of primitive prophets a bunch of contradictory and nonsensical instructions in order to have a single species worship it?
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 By the way, by calling evolution a "hypothesis" you're misnaming it. A hypothesis is a case a scientist sets out to prove. Evolution is a theory, which in scientific terms is a hypothesis that has been supported by testing and evidence. A scientific theory is for all intents and purposes a proven fact until it is overthown by contrary evidence. Evolution has been scientifically verified by observation and experiment ever since Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin presented their findings in 1858. If you are interested in this stuff it would be worthwhile for you to look a bit further into it. Charles Darwin was a scientist and in fact a better one than many today in my opinion. If you've read his book you will know that he himself suggested the basis on which his hypothesis could be tested and on which it would essentially pass or fail, this is a fair and reasonable scientist. What has been verified is the 'natural selection' process whereby genetic information can be bred out of a species be it a plant or an animal. If you want only dwarf wheat with tough stalks or only spaniels with extra shaggy coats that is natural selection by selective breeding. But what has never been observed is the central part of his hypothesis which is species change or what today we would say is the addition of genetic information. Darwin said for his idea to be verified would mean that the vast majority of fossils found would be of the transitional type. To date with millions of fossils found not a single one has been shown to be a transitionary type despite a few notable hoaxes such as Piltdown. That is why I and others refer to it as a hypothesis, the central claim has never been observed happening in any way, shape or form and in addition would tend to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is a very observable process. In addition to the lack of any physical fossil evidence scientific advances in the understanding of genetics and cell complexity over the past 30 odd years also render this hypothesis as increasingly problematic. From a mathematical perspective the level of improbability is now off the scale. A lot has changed since many of us read those school textbooks that talked about bacteria evolving and adapting for example, now we can actually observe what is happening. He never went as far as to claim abiogenesis as part of his hypothesis as far as I am aware, that requires another whole level of faith that I certainly don't have not to mention the obvious violation of physics such as Lavoisiers law. This is science's strength and religion's weakness - science is always happy to be proved wrong, because science seeks facts. Religion sets out a point of view and accepts no evidence to the contrary It would be nice if all science today did seek only facts then we wouldn't have junk science like the postulation of anthropogenic global warming which never panned out because it fails basic math, hence becoming itself a laughable religion.
facthunter Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 So YOU disagree with over 95% of the qualified scientists on the warming issue?. Most of the deniers are funded by people who wish to continue making money from the carbon based economy. Who do you trust? Those who make money or those who put their views out to be peer reviewed.?. The scientific method is constantly self evaluating . This is used by it's detractors as indicating uncertainty and suggesting that the matter is not resolved at all. Don't put your money on Carbon based outcomes. It's risky Plenty of ECONOMIC platforms say so.. The greenhouse effect is proven. Without Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the earth would be covered in ICE. Isn't it logical then that with more of it the earth warms? The oceans have been absorbing CO2 and are now acidic to a level that threatens much of the plankton and Coral.. Global warming is a RELIGION? You have to be joking. Nev
Old Koreelah Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 ...But what has never been observed is the central part of his hypothesis which is species change or what today we would say is the addition of genetic information. Darwin said for his idea to be verified would mean that the vast majority of fossils found would be of the transitional type. To date with millions of fossils found not a single... There are numerous examples of species that have changed slightly to better survive a different ecological niche. The process takes a long time and the chances of a scientist being at the right place at the right time to see the emergence of a new species is vanishingly small. Even Darwin should have recognised that transitional types would not be plentiful; only a tiny percentage of the very sucessful and numerous end up being fossilised. Of those, only a tiny proportion ever get dug up by our species. I agree with you GG that many scientists today are probably not as objective as was Darwin, but they are operating in a different world. He was independently wealthy. Most scientists today are beholden to large universities, corporations or government bodies. Many who have spoken out of turn (including early climate scientists) have paid a price for their scientific integrity. Climate change is "junk science"? Perhaps you can explain to us how the vast majority of highly-qualified scientist have got it wrong.
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Do you really want GG to explain why climate science is junk?
Old Koreelah Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Do you really want GG to explain why climate science is junk? Why not? I have plenty of time and, hopefully, an open mind. Who knows, he may convince me to join the climate change skeptics. I might even trade in my little fuel mizer and buy a Humvie!
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Even Darwin should have recognised that transitional types would not be plentiful; only a tiny percentage of the very sucessful and numerous end up being fossilised. Of those, only a tiny proportion ever get dug up by our species. Nope, think about it. As Darwin said it makes absolute sense that the majority of fossils found should be transitionary types, that is one species gradually changing into another different species. The main point is that the only observable changes or mutations have involved loss of genetic information, not addition. Neither is there to date any observable mechanism in any creature where this genetic information could be added without external manipulation. I agree with you GG that many scientists today are probably not as objective as was Darwin, but they are operating in a different world. He was independently wealthy. Most scientists today are beholden to large universities, corporations or government bodies. Many who have spoken out of turn (including early climate scientists) have paid a price for their scientific integrity. Yes, totally agree. Climate change is "junk science"? Perhaps you can explain to us how the vast majority of highly-qualified scientist have got it wrong. Not climate change - it is very evident that the climate changes over time and always has. I said anthropogenic global warming is junk science and has become a religion. I enjoy and to am extent an involved in both areas (science & religion) and personally don't see any conflict between them. But yeah, should get back to thread topic right....
facthunter Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I thought it was a HUMZEE, but I could be wrong... They are so wide (they fit TANK TRACKS) that you can't pass a cigarette from driver to passenger. Life is having a vehicle that expresses your personality. or maybe that you have arrived somewhere, or perhaps impresses the neighbours.. The admen work on all that. Nev
Old Koreelah Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I thought it was a HUMZEE, but I could be wrong... They are so wide (they fit TANK TRACKS) that you can't pass a cigarette from driver to passenger. Life is having a vehicle that expresses your personality. or maybe that you have arrived somewhere, or perhaps impresses the neighbours.. The admen work on all that. Nev Who cares what they are called, Nev. The copies I have seen on our streets are bloody ugly and an environmental obscenity.
Marty_d Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 To date with millions of fossils found not a single one has been shown to be a transitionary type despite a few notable hoaxes such as Piltdown. Absolute rubbish. There have been hundreds if not thousands of transitional fossils found so far. Some examples: Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Odontochelys semistestacea, Pezosiren portelli to name a few. He never went as far as to claim abiogenesis as part of his hypothesis as far as I am aware, that requires another whole level of faith that I certainly don't have not to mention the obvious violation of physics such as Lavoisiers law. Abiogenesis requires a "whole level of faith"? As opposed to the alternative, that life didn't form from non-living compounds but was placed fully functioning on earth by a being or beings who themselves must have had an origin? And why on earth would abiogenesis violate Lavoisier's law? ...junk science like the postulation of anthropogenic global warming which never panned out because it fails basic math, hence becoming itself a laughable religion. You have got to be kidding me. 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activity, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the 3% that dispute anthropogenic climate change are substantially below those that are convinced. So to put it simply, 97 percent of the people with the most expertise in the relevant sciences are convinced that human activity has caused climate change... but it's "junk science" and a "laughable religion"? What do you consider "real" science? "Intelligent Design"?
Old Koreelah Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Nope, think about it. As Darwin said it makes absolute sense that the majority of fossils found should be transitionary types, that is one species gradually changing into another different species. The main point is that the only observable changes or mutations have involved loss of genetic information, not addition. Neither is there to date any observable mechanism in any creature where this genetic information could be added without external manipulation.... I have some difficulty with your logic, GG. By their very nature, transitional species would be few in number, being descended from a single mutant individual. To be as numerous as you say Darwin predicted, they would have to be suddenly successful and multiply. In reality, I suggest that it would take many mutations among the transitional species until they had become sufficiently successful to become numerous. I assume we agree on the need to ensure scientists are truly open-minded and rational. You may be aware of this bloke. He says much worth considering; if some of his ideas are subjected to serious research, it may be a turning point in science.
dazza 38 Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I thought it was a HUMZEE, but I could be wrong... They are so wide (they fit TANK TRACKS) that you can't pass a cigarette from driver to passenger. Life is having a vehicle that expresses your personality. or maybe that you have arrived somewhere, or perhaps impresses the neighbours.. The admen work on all that. Nev It is HUMVEE which stands for High Mobility Wheeled Vehicle. I have been in a US marine corps Humvee. They are wide but the peeps in the front can pass stuff to each other like a durry if they wanted to.
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 So YOU disagree with over 95% of the qualified scientists on the warming issue? Seriously 'fact-hunter' you actually believe scientific fact is established by consensus? You actually put that out there with no shade of embarrassment? Remember how in the recent past scientists would regularly talk about vestigial organs and how 90-something percent of our DNA is 'junk DNA', an evolutionary by-product? Notice how they don't mention that any more? That's because due to scientific advances they now know that those organs and that DNA actually does have a purpose so the scientific text books were re-written yet again and these terms were quietly canned. The same process is under way with 'global warming' as this stage the term has transitioned to 'climate change' so that all types of significant weather events can be fudged into it. The Mann 'hockey stick graph' hoax has also been canned and isn't mentioned (except perhaps in the faith based media like the ABC). Old Koreelah - I will watch that clip later today. Marty - like 'facthunter' you are firm in your faith on this Darwinian stuff so there is no point derailing this thread further by going over your questions. I will just repeat that ZERO transitional fossils have been found and anyone having an honest and objective look at this. Of the creatures around today their fossils are absolutely identical irrespective of age. The missing link remains missing. Whilst we try to get back to topic (none of your new Moslem immigrant BFFs believe this Darwinian stuff BTW) I will leave you to ponder on the purpose and effectiveness of partially formed sex organs and the miracle of how your ancestors somehow reproduced with them. If you were to find some fossils in this phase it would be interesting, you could hit the media big time.
facthunter Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 You misrepresent my point entirely. You don't just have a vote of the masses where complex processes are concerned. My point was relating to "QUALIFIED" ie EXPERT in their field. BEST available information, on a matter of great importance IF you need a critical operation do you canvass the mates at the RSL or get more qualified advice?. Disregarding the overwhelming number of QUALIFIED peoples views and believing the stuff put out by oil, gas and coal millionaires, ie Koch brothers Murdoch (as a mouthpiece) The second biggest shareholder in News corpse is a Saudi sheik, would not be the way to go surely? Nev
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 If you push GG, he might disclose scientific evidence that he has, that proves that smoking and asbestos doesn't produce cancer.
octave Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Gnarly, I don't even know where to start. "Seriously 'fact-hunter' you actually believe scientific fact is established by consensus? You actually put that out there with no shade of embarrassment?" First of all scientists seldom use the word "fact" rather they talk of hypothesis, theory, law etc. "Consensus" well peer review consensus is one of the hallmarks of scientific method, if not scientific consensus what do you suggest? cherry picking the 1 in a hundred scientist that tell you what you want to hear? Vestigial organs - so are you asserting that this is no longer taught in universities? Climate change - the deniers love to portray this a some whacky belief held by non scientists but it is hard to find any reputable scientific organisation that doesn't accept the theory. Transitional Fossils there are many http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ Just out of interest which other established scientific theories do you not accept? I am guessing that you only doubt the theories that are problematic for your faith. cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology)
fly_tornado Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 This could be embarrassing for Julie Bishop http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/11/towbacks-may-breach-international-law-un-refugee-agency-cautions-abbott
facthunter Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Abbott would want us out of the UN. Same mantra as the US TEA PARTY. An honest broker could have been our way of doing things and fits our size and democratic tradition and political maturity. "Deputy Sheriff for George "Wubbleyuh never went well as a concept". We will end up in a very poor light on the world stage if we don't watch it. Nev
fly_tornado Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Coalition are definitely in a lot of trouble at the moment. Everything they "fix" seems to turn bad for them. I can't believe they are buying $250M worth of jets to fly themselves around in when so many people and businesses are doing it tough.
facthunter Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Adult mature government. New BWM (tank) for the Fuhrer. No further use for the(H) "Olden". car . The B737 model that was used by the previous government was a pretty base model Business package. Tony has to have room for the unbiased press hangers on, to ride in comfort. Austerity is not required for people of Calibre. The Castle is being renovated to get rid of the odour from the previous tenants. For the others of lesser breeding, but who breed too much, income tax starts at $120 a week. ($6,000 pa) instead of Labor's $18,000.. I guess you are doing it pretty high on the hog at $17 dollars a day. and don't mind kicking in a bit extra for the cost of all this stuff. Nev
metalman Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 By god you people have short memories,, un believable, after six years of ALP thieving, lying and rorting , it must be quite shocking to see a government doing what it said it would do. So Indonesia treating us as morons by supporting, staffing and facilitating an illegal trade in humans ( which incidentally killed hundreds under the ALP's watch) is all warm n fuzzy but a serious attempt to shut down this disgusting industry is just to much to bear in case we upset the very people who are making money from the problem,,,,really,,,,unbelievable. As a side note I'm also more than happy to not have to listen to the Gillard n Rudd circus every single night on the tv , the insatiable thirst for fame was just bloody ridiculous!
metalman Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Adult mature government. New BWM (tank) for the Fuhrer. No further use for the(H) "Olden". car .The B737 model that was used by the previous government was a pretty base model Business package. Tony has to have room for the unbiased press hangers on, to ride in comfort. Austerity is not required for people of Calibre. The Castle is being renovated to get rid of the odour from the previous tenants. For the others of lesser breeding, but who breed too much, income tax starts at $120 a week. ($6,000 pa) instead of Labor's $18,000.. I guess you are doing it pretty high on the hog at $17 dollars a day. and don't mind kicking in a bit extra for the cost of all this stuff. Nev So ford and Alcor and Mitsubishi along with a multitude of business' closing under labour watch isn't a problem but saying enough is enough to a huge multy national constantly grabbing our money is all good, I guess we're all fine with the union bosses ripping off the very people they claim to represent? I guess we'll have to see if an inquiry into their thieving will clean it up, As for the tax thresh hold it's been around $6k for decades, the only reason for the $18 k was to sweeten the deal on the carbon tax we were NEVER going to have
Recommended Posts