PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

If 95% of scientist are idiots does that mean they are more stupid than 95% of all preachers?

I contend that objective proof is important in establishing facts, also common sense!

We didn't visit the entire moon or dig very deep so it could still be made mostly of cheese.

I understand that people get upset when you shake the basic foundation of their sense of reality.

What a coincidence that children usually have the same god as their parents. I hear about people seeing god in near death experiences but then I think, hey how come the Christian people see jesus. You never hear of a jew in a near death experience meeting jesus. Then I think oh it is so obvious, because these hallucinations come from the brain. It may seem real to you just like the voices in the head of an insane person seems very real. Doctors say there is no point in arguing with them. This must be true.

braincell wrote:If 95% of scientist are idiots does that mean they are more stupid than 95% of all preachers? ...

well, I actually don't really consider them 'stupid' - the name calling was just to meet their typical tone when it comes to so called 'spiritual' or otherwise 'mysterious' topics
I dislike religous fundamentalism as much as scientists postulating truth, forgetting that this 'truth' is valid only in a limited context.

In my schooldays scientific courses were my favourites, I had a microscope and a telescope, collected fossils and insects - shame on me , used to fiddle with explosives and toxics in a home made laboratory and modded tube radios.

I can make sense of almost any scientific publication, but there's a lot of things (which I consider existing) that no scientist can explain - or better where the limits of the 'model' become obvious - and are denied.
As humans we see and feel the world with our senses, in our timeframe, we try to translate some 'information' we suspect to be 'existing' into something we can imagine etc.

That's our slice of reality - no more - no less.
Crown of creation ? ridiculous...

In Argentina scientists digged out huge colonies of a certain ant species, examined and modelled climate and conditions and it turned out that these 'nests' were perfectly constructed with chimneys, ways to keep temperature and moisture constant and such stuff.
An ant has a handful of neurons at best, something we consider similiar to our nerves - how does such a complex 'lifestyle' work out then ?

They (the ants) have their own slice of reality and anyone denying it's less complex than our own is a fool imho - and as a scientist he would have to admit that we lack some abilities to 'peek' into their world.
Instead scientists treat them as worthless matter...

as such I'm a kind of equal-opportunity-spectator

I don't have a 'personal Jesus' - church as an institution isn't exactly my cup of tea - yet I've seen people in deep faith doing good things on desperate persons, when no one else cared.
If people pray to their god then it's their own deal and they have any right to do so - personally.
On the other hand missionary way of 'convincing' people and in particular in it's 'radical' forms isn't seconded by me.

cheers, Tom
(I don't consider you a scientist btw - though I might be wrong...)

I understand that people get upset when you shake the basic foundation of their sense of reality.

This is absolutely true. And it is true of both the religious and the non-religious!
I think it is the reason why some believers make silly claims that cannot be backed up, and also why some atheists are so mean-spirited about the beliefs of the religious. The idea that their opposition could be right frightens both of them.

Pildown man was an excellent example of scientists being entrenched in an idea. British scientists were all too willing to accept Piltdown man because he was exactly what they were hoping for.
Raymond Dart on the other hand had a significant find in Africa with australopithicus, and he was ignored by the scientific community at the time because his find did not fit in with their preconceived notions.

No one is immune!

wayne wrote:Aaaargh!

Stay calm, there's worse to come !

anyway, yes..... dino's on Noah's Ark

Kangaroos floated on rafts to Australia after the flood. And before God said to the snake, "down on your belly", snakes hopped about on the end of their tails.

I wonder what gibberish they get to hear in other cultures. Actually, I try not to.

And : it's too bad we can't put anything but dinos on noah's ark.

All good points there!

Len is referring to a story today about a "museum" which is building noah's ark with dinosaurs in it. They are expecting 5 million visitors a year.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRea ... 0720070526

This is only going to get worse because they are breeding more of them. The christians are constantly trying to get religion into public schools. They are allowed their own schools but that's not good enough for them. Their goal is to convert everyone. I have no problem with aboriginals because they are not aiming to dominate me. Our money says "in god we trust", I can not buy hard alcohol on Sunday because they figure I should be in church. The churches pay no property tax under the guise that they are helping people.

braincell wrote:Len is referring to a story today about a "museum" which is building noah's ark with dinosaurs in it. They are expecting 5 million visitors a year.

Actually I was referring to the Creamware Noah. Too bad they can't write 3rd party devices for it. Apparently it can't be done. Scope4Live took the right approach.

I don't think that science completely accounts for what we see, though in no way would I think it was at all a sign of good sense to argue with science. There is a degree of skepticism I have for newer developments, but established science (i.e. earth goes round sun [or rather moves forward in 4 dimensional space time ] ) is not LIKELY to be wrong. The basic principles of evolution I would call established, we've observed this behaviour, say with antibiotics. The newer kind of creationists, the ID-ers, seem to at least accept this too, but they want to call the part of science that we don't yet know, "the part that God did". Which leads of course to "so that proves we know God personally, so you better listen to us".

Yes, those are scary people, the ones behind the link you send. Animals are more dangerous when frightened, and they are a bunch of very frightened followers, manipulated by maybe cynical (or maybe also-crazed) leaders. Taking the Bible like it's some kind of fax from God when the many contradictions jump out, is puzzling to me.

The las 2 sentences in my link made me stop laughing abruptly:

A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.

wayne wrote:The las 2 sentences in my link made me stop laughing abruptly:

A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.

i'd take at least as seriously, the ad for national cervical cancer vaccinations. giving live cancer virii to little girls is always a good idea....