 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| RENT THIS SPACE wrote: | | After reading the above post I am even more of the opinion that dinosaurs (feathered or other-wise) still exist. |
After reading this post - I am even more of the opinion that what people do not understand, they put down. This is not intelligence, just the opposite.
Fact is most non believers have not read the Bible - by read the bible I mean study for many years and see the truth pour into this world right from those very pages.
You do not want to? Do not care? This is fine. No problem at all.
However, if you have not bothered to explore one side, seriously HTF would you have any idea based on anything other than what suits you and your life.
To not explore all sides but to dismiss one side is stupidity at its finest.
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
One must, I think, do one's best to distinguish between people who have a religious faith, on the one hand, and people who adhere to beliefs which are so ridiculous that it leads them to believe some other very silly things and to insult the intelligence of the rest of us, on the other hand.
Both classes of believers might be deeply misguided but it is only the latter class which tends to say things which we are all dumber for hearing.
Hoyle, of course, had no excuse - he was just an atheist who misunderstood his own maths. |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | One must, I think, do one's best to distinguish between people who have a religious faith, on the one hand, and people who adhere to beliefs which are so ridiculous that it leads them to believe some other very silly things and to insult the intelligence of the rest of us, on the other hand.
Both classes of believers might be deeply misguided but it is only the latter class which tends to say things which we are all dumber for hearing.
Hoyle, of course, had no excuse - he was just an atheist who misunderstood his own maths. |
No. He was a scientist. What you are saying is that this scientist got it wrong.
Shocking isn't it. Who would have thought it.
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I think you may have missed my point, which was that Hoyle - who was not a believer in either category (except, perhaps, in the "X-Files" sense) - therefore had no excuse for saying something which we are all dumber for hearing. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh FFS Laird, next time learn what science is before you make such a fool of yourself again. This is the whole point of science. This is what makes the scientific method so valuable: science records mistakes so that they don't get made again. That's how it works. That's why it works.
One step at a time, science tries out ideas and measures them against the facts. Nearly all scientific ideas get rejected. Little by little, the best ideas emerge from the dross of other ideas which turned out to be wrong, and then we try out new ideas to build upon the best ideas we have so far. Step by step we improve.
(By the way, those remarks of Fred Hoyle we are discussing were not scientific. Obviously, not everything a professional scientist says or writes is scientific. In exactly the same way, a friend of mine who is a professional minister of religion says things about the cricket which are not revelations from his god. To pretend otherwise is just a cheap, tawdry debating trick.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | I think you may have missed my point, which was that Hoyle - who was not a believer in either category (except, perhaps, in the "X-Files" sense) - therefore had no excuse for saying something which we are all dumber for hearing. |
It was just his opinion as it yours or mine. Whether you feel dumber or not from his opinion really is your business. It is not fact that his opinion or anyone's opinion is dumb or makes you dumber - it is just that you do not agree with it.
Have a wonderful day mate 
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Oh FFS Laird, next time learn what science is before you make such a fool of yourself again. This is the whole point of science. This is what makes the scientific method so valuable: science records mistakes so that they don't get made again. That's how it works. That's why it works.
One step at a time, science tries out ideas and measures them against the facts. Nearly all scientific ideas get rejected. Little by little, the best ideas emerge from the dross of other ideas which turned out to be wrong, and then we try out new ideas to build upon the best ideas we have so far. Step by step we improve.
(By the way, those remarks of Fred Hoyle we are discussing were not scientific. Obviously, not everything a professional scientist says or writes is scientific. In exactly the same way, a friend of mine who is a professional minister of religion says things about the cricket which are not revelations from his god. To pretend otherwise is just a cheap, tawdry debating trick.) |
Tannin, you have said it before - if you do not understand something then STFU about it. You are an angry little man who I have very little time for.
Stick to birds.
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| laird wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | I think you may have missed my point, which was that Hoyle - who was not a believer in either category (except, perhaps, in the "X-Files" sense) - therefore had no excuse for saying something which we are all dumber for hearing. |
It was just his opinion as it yours or mine. Whether you feel dumber or not from his opinion really is your business. It is not fact that his opinion or anyone's opinion is dumb or makes you dumber - it is just that you do not agree with it.
Have a wonderful day mate |
Either you can't seriously believe this or else you have lost all your critical faculties. Not all "opinions" are equally worthy. Some are just so entirely unmeritorious that one must discard them - "agree" or "disagree" has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | I am looking forward to my son learning about rust in Chemistry next year. Hopefully, equal time will be given to the phlogiston theory there. Oxygen is against my religious beliefs and I am offended by the concept. 
Is there no end to the tripe up with which we have to put in the name of "tolerance" of the superstitions of the semi-literate? What happened to the most important human right of all - the right to call an idiot an idiot and dismiss their nonsense as, well, nonsense? |
^ This is posting of the highest quality.
It might be helpful to those reading this - or at least those who do not have an active brain dysfunction at present - to be reminded of one of the lunatic nature-deniers minor tactics. This is to always (or at least often) talk about "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" or "Darwin's theory".
This is a clever little tactic as it reduces the matter to a simple question of one book ("The Bible") versus another book ("The Origin of Species"). It is an excellent example of the quite brilliantly devious way the religious nutters advance their cause. It works like this:
First, it reduces human knowledge about and understanding of evolution to one single very old book. It pretends that this book - which is getting on towards 200 years old now - is both canonical and comprehensive, when it is neither. Using Darwin's work as a proxy for the whole of modern biology is equivalent to using Karl Marx's work as a proxy for the whole of modern economics. Both were brilliant men, both made great advances, both were justly famous, both were often misunderstood, both still have interesting and relevant contributions to make today if you read them properly (i.e., as old, historically situated commentators with remarkable insights given the very limited knowledge at that time); neither comes anywhere near describing the things we know today about their fields.
Second, it misleads the reader as to the origin of human knowledge about evolutionary processes. Darwin was not the first to explore this area, nor was his contribution unique - others were working in the same field at the same time and arriving at similar conclusions. Darwin was a very bright cookie, make no mistake about that, but if he had never lived, neither human history nor the history of science would be very different. Many early scientists were learning new things about the natural world at that time and understanding was increasing at a great rate. Darwin wrote up his study of evolution at the exactly the same time as Wallace, but if neither had done so, there were plenty of others not quite so quick on the uptake who were working away along similar lines and would have succeeded before too much longer. Really, the main thing that is significant about Darwin himself is that the happened to be a figure from an establishment background, which Wallace wasn't. For this reason, Darwin became famous and Wallace is almost forgotten.
Summary: the loony deniers always pretend that the whole of evolutionary knowledge is contained in one old book because that makes it easy to compare to their weirdo beliefs which are contained in one old book.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | I am looking forward to my son learning about rust in Chemistry next year. Hopefully, equal time will be given to the phlogiston theory there. Oxygen is against my religious beliefs and I am offended by the concept.
Is there no end to the tripe up with which we have to put in the name of "tolerance" of the superstitions of the semi-literate? What happened to the most important human right of all - the right to call an idiot an idiot and dismiss their nonsense as, well, nonsense? |
^ This is posting of the highest quality.
It might be helpful to those reading this - or at least those who do not have an active brain dysfunction at present - to be reminded of one of the lunatic nature-deniers minor tactics. This is to always (or at least often) talk about "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" or "Darwin's theory".
This is a clever little tactic as it reduces the matter to a simple question of one book ("The Bible") versus another book ("The Origin of Species"). It is an excellent example of the quite brilliantly devious way the religious nutters advance their cause. It works like this:
First, it reduces human knowledge about and understanding of evolution to one single very old book. It pretends that this book - which is getting on towards 200 years old now - is both canonical and comprehensive, when it is neither. Using Darwin's work as a proxy for the whole of modern biology is equivalent to using Karl Marx's work as a proxy for the whole of modern economics. Both were brilliant men, both made great advances, both were justly famous, both were often misunderstood, both still have interesting and relevant contributions to make today if you read them properly (i.e., as old, historically situated commentators with remarkable insights given the very limited knowledge at that time); neither comes anywhere near describing the things we know today about their fields.
Second, it misleads the reader as to the origin of human knowledge about evolutionary processes. Darwin was not the first to explore this area, nor was his contribution unique - others were working in the same field at the same time and arriving at similar conclusions. Darwin was a very bright cookie, make no mistake about that, but if he had never lived, neither human history nor the history of science would be very different. Many early scientists were learning new things about the natural world at that time and understanding was increasing at a great rate. Darwin wrote up his study of evolution at the exactly the same time as Wallace, but if neither had done so, there were plenty of others not quite so quick on the uptake who were working away along similar lines and would have succeeded before too much longer. Really, the main thing that is significant about Darwin himself is that the happened to be a figure from an establishment background, which Wallace wasn't. For this reason, Darwin became famous and Wallace is almost forgotten.
Summary: the loony deniers always pretend that the whole of evolutionary knowledge is contained in one old book because that makes it easy to compare to their weirdo beliefs which are contained in one old book. |
If you say so, it must be true 
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | laird wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | I think you may have missed my point, which was that Hoyle - who was not a believer in either category (except, perhaps, in the "X-Files" sense) - therefore had no excuse for saying something which we are all dumber for hearing. |
It was just his opinion as it yours or mine. Whether you feel dumber or not from his opinion really is your business. It is not fact that his opinion or anyone's opinion is dumb or makes you dumber - it is just that you do not agree with it.
Have a wonderful day mate |
Either you can't seriously believe this or else you have lost all your critical faculties. Not all "opinions" are equally worthy. Some are just so entirely unmeritorious that one must discard them - "agree" or "disagree" has nothing to do with it. |
Many millions of people all across the world disagree with your opinion - they would say that the opinion of evolution is unworthy and that one must discard it.
Annnnnd around we go
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| laird wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | Oh FFS Laird, next time learn what science is before you make such a fool of yourself again. This is the whole point of science. This is what makes the scientific method so valuable: science records mistakes so that they don't get made again. That's how it works. That's why it works.
One step at a time, science tries out ideas and measures them against the facts. Nearly all scientific ideas get rejected. Little by little, the best ideas emerge from the dross of other ideas which turned out to be wrong, and then we try out new ideas to build upon the best ideas we have so far. Step by step we improve.
(By the way, those remarks of Fred Hoyle we are discussing were not scientific. Obviously, not everything a professional scientist says or writes is scientific. In exactly the same way, a friend of mine who is a professional minister of religion says things about the cricket which are not revelations from his god. To pretend otherwise is just a cheap, tawdry debating trick.) |
Tannin, you have said it before - if you do not understand something then STFU about it. You are an angry little man who I have very little time for.
Stick to birds. |
^ Classic, textbook behaviour from those who cannot create a rational case for their irrational view. When all else fails, spew personal abuse at whoever said whatever it that showed you up.
PS: birds provide a particularly rich set of compelling examples of the working of evolution. Not a bad thing to stick to, if we are interested in learning things today.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | laird wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | Oh FFS Laird, next time learn what science is before you make such a fool of yourself again. This is the whole point of science. This is what makes the scientific method so valuable: science records mistakes so that they don't get made again. That's how it works. That's why it works.
One step at a time, science tries out ideas and measures them against the facts. Nearly all scientific ideas get rejected. Little by little, the best ideas emerge from the dross of other ideas which turned out to be wrong, and then we try out new ideas to build upon the best ideas we have so far. Step by step we improve.
(By the way, those remarks of Fred Hoyle we are discussing were not scientific. Obviously, not everything a professional scientist says or writes is scientific. In exactly the same way, a friend of mine who is a professional minister of religion says things about the cricket which are not revelations from his god. To pretend otherwise is just a cheap, tawdry debating trick.) |
Tannin, you have said it before - if you do not understand something then STFU about it. You are an angry little man who I have very little time for.
Stick to birds. |
^ Classic, textbook behaviour from those who cannot create a rational case for their irrational view. When all else fails, spew personal abuse at whoever said whatever it that showed you up.
PS: birds provide a particularly rich set of compelling examples of the working of evolution. Not a bad thing to stick to, if we are interested in learning things today. |
Having previously read your posts on religion or anything for that matter, you really live in a bubble if you think you are the most polite poster.
Show me up? Are we 5 years old? This is a board. I do this day in, day out in the real world. Do you really think I am going to waste a lot of energy here to get a point across to an audience that is not of the same opinion?
My energy is for those who request and need it. I am simply having fun on my day off.
Actually For the past few hours, whilst busy with other things, I have felt like shit for having a crack at you. I apologise for the ' little man ' comment. It was uncalled for. The rest was not.
Have a good weekend.
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
laird
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| laird wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | laird wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | Oh FFS Laird, next time learn what science is before you make such a fool of yourself again. This is the whole point of science. This is what makes the scientific method so valuable: science records mistakes so that they don't get made again. That's how it works. That's why it works.
One step at a time, science tries out ideas and measures them against the facts. Nearly all scientific ideas get rejected. Little by little, the best ideas emerge from the dross of other ideas which turned out to be wrong, and then we try out new ideas to build upon the best ideas we have so far. Step by step we improve.
(By the way, those remarks of Fred Hoyle we are discussing were not scientific. Obviously, not everything a professional scientist says or writes is scientific. In exactly the same way, a friend of mine who is a professional minister of religion says things about the cricket which are not revelations from his god. To pretend otherwise is just a cheap, tawdry debating trick.) |
Tannin, you have said it before - if you do not understand something then STFU about it. You are an angry little man who I have very little time for.
Stick to birds. |
^ Classic, textbook behaviour from those who cannot create a rational case for their irrational view. When all else fails, spew personal abuse at whoever said whatever it that showed you up.
PS: birds provide a particularly rich set of compelling examples of the working of evolution. Not a bad thing to stick to, if we are interested in learning things today. |
Having previously read your posts on religion or anything for that matter, you really live in a bubble if you think you are the most polite poster.
Show me up? Are we 5 years old? This is a board. I do this day in, day out in the real world. Do you really think I am going to waste a lot of energy here to get a point across to an audience that is not of the same opinion or open to anything else?
My energy is for those who request and need it. I am simply having fun on my day off.
Actually For the past few hours, whilst busy with other things, I have felt like shit for having a crack at you. I apologise for the ' little man ' comment. It was uncalled for. The rest was not.
Have a good weekend. |
_________________
" Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
