User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Can you trust Science media?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    Fall River's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    829
    Thanked: 317
    Rep Power
    644252
    I'm currently reading a book about identical twins; the title: "Identically Different" by Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology. He set up the Twins UK register in 1993.

    In chapter 7 he says that when twins die within minutes of each other, it becomes big news around the world. And because the twins have identical genes, it gives a false impression that everything in life is controlled by our genes - as though the timing of natural death is pre-ordained.

    The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of identical twins die many years apart.


    The complete title is, "Identically Different: Why We Can Change Our genes". Yes, we are in control of our genes and it's not the other way around. Our genes are expressed one way or another based on our behavior. Identical twins separated at birth usually do not live identical lives and do not have identical health issues etc.

    But how many times have you heard people blame their poor health on their genes? Or, if you enjoy good health they will tell you you're lucky to have good genes.
    Last edited by Fall River; 07-15-2019 at 10:29 AM.

  2. #22
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 65.0%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    17,188
    Thanks
    5,342
    Thanked: 19,562
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Any science thread that starts out with links to "Answers in Genesis" is obviously NOT going to yield science of any kind.
    Last edited by Morning Star; 07-15-2019 at 11:00 AM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Morning Star For This Useful Post:

    patrickt (07-17-2019)

  4. #23
    Administrator V.I.P
    TPF Moderator
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First ClassVeteranCreated Blog entry
    Overall activity: 99.8%

    Calypso Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    71,125
    Thanks
    5,535
    Thanked: 74,095
    Rep Power
    21474914
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    Any science thread that starts out with links to "Answers in Genesis" is obviously NOT going to yield science of any kind.
    how narrow minded of you. you would say something like that when the evolution side of creation has come up with the most outlandish scenarios and alleged discoveries and they've been proven wrong time after time....and these were not honest mistakes. THESE. WERE. FRAUDS.

    There are reputable creation scientists. and i'll tell you something else...there are many evolutionists who have moved into creationism. They don't tell you that.
    Last edited by Calypso Jones; 07-16-2019 at 09:03 PM.
    Sarah Sanders doesn't often mop the White House Press Corp Floor...but when she does, she uses Jim Acosta.

    There is no American free press. They're bought and paid for.

    “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

    The Devil whispered in Trumps ear and said,
    "you're not strong enough to withstand the storm".
    President Trump whispered back,"I am The Storm"!

  5. #24
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 77.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    23,998
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,057
    Rep Power
    21474865
    Quote Originally Posted by Calypso Jones View Post
    how narrow minded of you. you would say something like that when the evolution side of creation has come up with the most outlandish scenarios and alleged discoveries and they've been proven wrong time after time....and these were not honest mistakes. THESE. WERE. FRAUDS.

    There are reputable creation scientists. and i'll tell you something else...there are many evolutionists who have moved into creationism. They don't tell you that.
    But Calypso - look - listen please.

    I keep trying to tell you, if you're interested in the mysteries of creation, you're at a whole different level. In that case, you're not interested in denigrating evolution, because Evolution follows logically from something entirely different.

    I've said it over and over again - "fundamental symmetries". These are laws of nature, they are every bit as real as the force of gravity. They "dictate" evolution - that is to say, these symmetries enable the chemical combinations of molecules that allow and support life.

    Let me share just briefly -

    These symmetries, are geometry. Do you know about geometry? Geometry is the measurement ("metry") part of topology, which is the study of shapes (topo, like topography, like a map). In geometry, you have the Euclidean part, which is what most of us learn in school (sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees, etc) - but it turns out in three dimensions there are nine geometries, and euclidean is only one of them. For example in Einstein's relativity we have a hyperbolic (non-Euclidean) geometry, that's his "curvature of the universe" in relation to gravity, and it's described by the Minkowski metric and etc etc -

    The reason this is important, is that all chemical (and therefore biochemical) molecules have SYMMETRY - and not just any symmetry, only certain very specific kinds of symmetry (these being examples of "fundamental symmetries", which in turn are related to even more fundamental symmetries). Atoms and molecules can only combined in certain ways, and not in others. The permissible ways are described by the symmetries. We're talking about life, so start with water. Oxygen is paramagnetic - both hydrogens end up on the same "side" of the molecule - so you can rotate around that axis, and still maintain the same shape, but you cannot rotate around the perpendicular axis, because that changes the shape.

    This is what goes on in evolution. It's not about fossils, it's about the shapes of molecules. The symmetries that are "allowable" in nature all derive from a single source - and we don't know what that looks like yet, but for example in physics there is string theory which postulates a "shape" called a Calabi-Yau manifold which when projected down into three dimensions plus time, creates all the right symmetries. This being one "possible" explanation (and as of yet it has no proof, but it's one of only a very few possibilities).

    This thing called Evolution that we observe, is a direct result and consequence of the fundamental symmetries of the universe. Life is programmed in at a very low fundamental level, down at the level of symmetries of quantum phenomena and subatomic entities like quarks (which have 3 axes of symmetry instead of just one).

    Biological life forms violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is to say, instead of becoming more entropic and random, we become more structured and sophisticated. This is because the first thing life has to do is isolate itself from the rest of the chemical mish-mosh, so it can support biochemical reactions in a more orderly fashion. There is nothing at all mysterious about biological evolution, it's a direct consequence of the chemicals structures determined by the fundamental symmetries of the universe.

    So if you're interested in CREATION, then you don't want to look at Evolution which is a downstream consequence, except perhaps in passing interest - what you really want to look at is those symmetries. Me personally, I look at these from a slightly different angle, I'm into information Theory so I'm interested in the cost of information (information being equivalent to structure at some level, which means it is intimately related to Geometry). So I study the brain, and the interesting thing about our brains is, we MODEL the fundamental symmetries of nature. Even though we cannot directly see them or experience them, somehow our brains infer them. Where "I" see the symmetries, is in the storage network of a Content addressable memory - and lo and behold, they are the SAME symmetries the physicists talk about, with all that "higher dimensional" vocabulary -

    And I mean, I'll be the first one to admit that none of those fuckers know what they're talking about, and neither do I, no one really knows how this stuff works, but there's a lot of people studying it. There's a lot of scientists to intuitively realize that the symmetries are where it's at, if we can understand those, then we can understand a lot about "how God works".

    I'm not going to tell you you're wrong about creation, you may very well be completely right. But I'm going to tell you that you're wrong about evolution, because there's nothing in evolution that would deny God's creation. It's only the people who don't understand evolution, who see some kind of conflict there, and really it's a shame, because this mechanism of chemical symmetry is really quite elegant, it's an amazing piece of work, and it's hard to imagine that it was... um... "random"...

    I don't know if you were following the discussion about physics in the other thread, but we were talking about the geometries underlying the Calabi-Yau manifold - there are over 900,000 of them! And somehow, magically, we got the ONE that works. Hm...

    So like, the big question now is whether this "selection" is due to some other underlying process, or whether it's some kind of universal Global thing, or what exactly is going on there... I can tell you from my own studies, the big difference between the brain and the outside universe is that in physics the distributions are fixed, whereas in the brain they are variable in real time. No one knows what this means, I certainly don't. And I wouldn't I have even the remotest idea about how to begin investigating it. For one thing we don't have the technology yet, and for another we wouldn't know how to interpret the results even if we did.

    But we cannot stop looking. And this is why scientists react so strongly when creationists invoke ridiculous "evidence", or point to holes in what is obviously an incomplete Theory, as some kind of evidence of invalidity.

    One has to ask the right question. If one is interested in creation, one will wish to look at the symmetries, because they are what determine evolution, and as far as we can tell right now, biological evolution is a given. If you ask me about the theory of species I'll give you a different answer, but as far as the underlying biochemistry, the theory of evolution is pretty much a given at this point.

    I have studied the issue of species in great detail. I can tell you without qualification, it boils down to SHAPE. Not the shape of a body part, but instead, the shape of a molecule, or the shape of a process that the molecule is engaged in. To even grasp what this concept is all about, you have to leaf through the book "Fractal Geometry of Nature" by Benoit Mandelbrot. There are lots of amazing pictures in it, not to mention the entirety of the modern animation industry is based on the very easy math in this book. But he talks about SHAPE, and he shows it to you, and then he shows you how to create it. And in the process he says a lot about dimensions and dimensionality. And as you're reading, keep in mind we're talking about geometry ("metry" = metric = measurement), so for example, if you're asking how long is the coastline of Britain, the answer is, it depends on the length of your ruler.

  6. #25
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 82.0%

    patrickt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oaxaca, Mexico, for over twenty years. Born and raised in Memphis, TN, and worked in Colorado.
    Posts
    28,399
    Thanks
    3,468
    Thanked: 16,786
    Rep Power
    21474871
    Quote Originally Posted by Calypso Jones View Post
    how narrow minded of you. you would say something like that when the evolution side of creation has come up with the most outlandish scenarios and alleged discoveries and they've been proven wrong time after time....and these were not honest mistakes. THESE. WERE. FRAUDS.

    There are reputable creation scientists. and i'll tell you something else...there are many evolutionists who have moved into creationism. They don't tell you that.
    It is not narrow minded to not accept a religious document as evidence in a discussion of science. That's like disputing a scientific fact that water cannot become wine through transmogrification by pointing out that the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine. Rejecting that isn't narrow minded, Calypso, just reasonable.

    I don't know how it all started but I'm not about to believe it started with a lonely man in a garden where an evil genius has put a tree with the forbidden fruit.

    I'm sure when a scientists finds there is more money in research that pleases the tobacco companies or the government or religious folks their research will reflect that finding.
    Last edited by patrickt; 07-17-2019 at 06:34 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    SharetheHedge (08-11-2019)

  8. #26
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked: 360
    Rep Power
    3571423
    You say "......there is nothing in evolution that would deny God's creation."

    Yet, the entire purpose, the foundation supporting the theory is to eliminate (deny) the necessity for a creator (God) and show that all that is known is the result of randomness, chance and happenstance rather than purposeful design.

    Be honest. Those who delve into such are driven by revulsion towards religion as practiced by nearly all of the planet. They are not searching for God. They are seeking proofs to reject Him.

    Common walking around sense and awareness is all that is required to know that God is real. It is logical. As to religion one can fairly ask why so many? But the fact that there are so many also provides evidence of God. Could one counterfeit a 20 dollar bill if the real one did not exist?

    You say that you study the brain. How does the mind work? What gives a gooey glob the power of thinking, of reasoning, of discovery, of designing, of planning, of producing, of studying, of making music and visual art, of dance? Is it not that the human brain is endowed with a spirit? The human spirit? That God placed in man in the process of making him in His image, after His own likeness? Of course it is.

    Yes, evolution is incomplete. One can never solve a problem when the purpose is to deny the answer.

  9. #27
    Games People Play Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteranCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 74.0%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    55,098
    Thanks
    11,244
    Thanked: 42,207
    Rep Power
    21474897
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Gunman View Post
    nope.

    some of their 'facts' seem to be constantly in flux.

    about the only thing they agree on is that second hand smoke is more dangerous than gamma radiation.

    that, and new drugs need to be pushed out the door as quickly as possible as the revenue will almost always exponentially outweigh the cost of the lawsuits they engender.
    Their "facts" are in flux because of the shifting needs and expediencies - and that they're constantly tweaking the Narrative to fit those expediencies.

    SCIENCE is dispassionate, organized, structured inquiry. It's framed around a useful method: Observe a phenomenon. Formulate an hypothesis explaining it. Design a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Run the test, and observe the results. FROM that, formulate new hypotheses - or, if the test failed, construct a new test.

    Take that and juxtapose it against this hysteria for Glow Bull Warming. Where is their hypotheses? What is their test methodology? A computer model is not a test. It's a showpiece, and it assumes the facts entered in are correct. We don't know what the modelers have used for facts and what their proof of those facts, is.

    There is very-little science going on in the scientific community. Mostly there is political propaganda. Same as with Law and Religion...it's all about The Narrative.

  10. #28
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 77.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    23,998
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,057
    Rep Power
    21474865
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    You say "......there is nothing in evolution that would deny God's creation."

    Yet, the entire purpose, the foundation supporting the theory is to eliminate (deny) the necessity for a creator (God) and show that all that is known is the result of randomness, chance and happenstance rather than purposeful design.

    Be honest. Those who delve into such are driven by revulsion towards religion as practiced by nearly all of the planet. They are not searching for God. They are seeking proofs to reject Him.

    Common walking around sense and awareness is all that is required to know that God is real. It is logical. As to religion one can fairly ask why so many? But the fact that there are so many also provides evidence of God. Could one counterfeit a 20 dollar bill if the real one did not exist?

    You say that you study the brain. How does the mind work? What gives a gooey glob the power of thinking, of reasoning, of discovery, of designing, of planning, of producing, of studying, of making music and visual art, of dance? Is it not that the human brain is endowed with a spirit? The human spirit? That God placed in man in the process of making him in His image, after His own likeness? Of course it is.

    Yes, evolution is incomplete. One can never solve a problem when the purpose is to deny the answer.
    Second paragraph:

    Not at all. Wherever did you get that idea?

    Look here - evolution is SCIENCE, it has nothing to do with God one way or the other. It's a set of observations and repeatable experiments, it makes absolutely no statements about God, one way or the other.

    Whoever told you there was any relationship between evolution and God, was lying to you. Most likely they had an agenda of Their Own.

    I told you exactly what evolution is, and you can believe me or not believe me, that's your choice - however that doesn't change the reality, which is exactly as I told you it is.

    Evolution deniers are the most arrogant people on the planet, they think they know how God works, in spite of 300 million pieces of evidence to the contrary. They're looking at God in real time, He is right in front of their noses, and they still deny Him.

    And that's because they don't understand what they're looking at. They see a fin on a fish and they say "species" - but I mean, that's the same as looking at an apple falling and saying gravity, because a hundred years ago we learned there's really no such thing as gravity, it's actually a curvature of the universe. It "looks like" a force, even behaves like one, but at the end of the day it turns out to be simple geometry.

    The first rule of science is, you have to define the vocabulary you're using. Define "spirit".

    Can you measure it? If you can't measure it, you can't test it, which means you can't experiment with it.

    It sounds to me like the answer is not only something you can't Define, but also can't measure, can't test, and can't experiment with.

    So, that answer may be sufficient for you, but I don't think anyone else is going to believe it, because the whole point of science is INDEPENDENT observation and REPRODUCIBLE results. People have been attempting to measure the human Spirit since the beginning of time, and they've never once been successful. Scientists and philosophers have been trying to Define it for thousands of years, and they haven't succeeded either.

    I mean, look, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but I'm also making a point. Your professing a viewpoint which came from someone with a lot of hatred, who didn't understand science. And to the extent that you're propagating that viewpoint, you can be accused of the same. So like, I would be very careful challenging 300 million pieces of evidence. It is going to be absolutely 100% impossible to argue away that evidence. What you need to do is fit all those 300 million pieces into a new and better model. If you can do that, then we can talk - but I mean, you and I both know it's going to be impossible.

    No see, you can only look where you know to look. If you don't know about quarks and subatomic particles, you're not going to look there, because you can't. Evolution has nothing to do with fossils, it has a lot more to do with quarks and subatomic particles. But we didn't even know what those were until a hundred years ago, much less three thousand years ago, so like, they only looked where they knew to look, and the model seemed to make sense at the time.

    But this idea of failing to update ones models based on some outdated Orthodoxy, won't work in the world of science.

    We've already discussed the exact difference between the story in Genesis and what we know about evolution - the short answer is the landscape is basically correct but they got the order of a couple of the species wrong - and like, so what? It was still a remarkable achievement for people who are thousands of years away from both biochemistry and physics. They basically told you three thousand years ago, the same thing that Darwin told you, which is that there is an order to the evolution of the species, that one came "after" the other. No where in the Bible does it say that God created all the species all at once, in fact it's States specifically that he created them on successive days, and if you didn't know about biochemistry and physics, there's no way you could have equated that with evolution, even though, you are clearly seeing the trend in the progression of observable features.

    No one is denying the answer. Evolution is not about the answer, evolution is about the mechanism. Evolution does not seek to answer the question, it only seeks to describe "how".

    I mean, how else do you think God did it? Do you think he snapped his fingers and suddenly there were species? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for any mechanism OTHER THAN evolution?

    See, from a religious standpoint, you need to understand that the god of the Old Testament was capricious and whimsical. He brought down plagues and pestilence whenever He felt like it. Today, we understand that natural laws are not capricious and whimsical, in fact they're the exact opposite, they are perpetual, they are constant, they are the same today as they were yesterday, and they are the same for you as they are for me.

    The old-timers were so smart they even discovered that part too - but once again they didn't know much about physics, so they just arrived at the truth from a spiritual standpoint.
    Last edited by nonsqtr; 07-17-2019 at 08:02 AM.

  11. #29
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 55.0%

    Gator Monroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    6,522
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked: 4,316
    Rep Power
    5769627
    They have hidden the Truth for over a hundred years

  12. #30
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked: 360
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Define "Spirit"? God is a Spirit. He defines Himself. He is invisible unless He chooses to manifest Himself visibly. He has hair, eyes, a nose, mouth, arms, hands, torso, legs, feet, fingers and toes. He looks like a man. He made man in his image. Is that graphic enough for you?

    Now, you define a Calabi-Yau Manifold. Better yet I'll do it for you. It is totally imaginary. No one has ever seen one. It is some sort of crate, a box, a device that all those extra dimensions hide in because nobody has ever seen the effects of them either. They too are imaginary. In fact, the Landscape that you are so arrogantly proud of discussing is also imaginary. There is no evidence of any of these scientific wonderings. Oscillating Universe? Horse pockey. Multi-universes? Only in your head.

    Look, there is nothing wrong with scientific study. Milking the government cow of grant money is what this is really all about. But the government cow depends on us working stiffs who pay taxes so that the cow has milk to give.

    So study away. What I find putrid is that you seek to justify all of your "study" as if you are advancing the well being of the world. In some instances that does result. But the bullshit far out weighs the benefits. And for you to redefine evolution, a fable, in order to make it meritorious is insulting and malignant. Some people actually believe your crap, particularly the young.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •