User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Can you trust Science media?

  1. #31
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 61.0%

    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
    28,333
    Thanks
    3,454
    Thanked: 16,732
    Rep Power
    21474871
    @CWF

    There have been many attempts to explain lightning, thunder, floods, famine, and birth defects and may of the explanations were based on faith. Lightning comes from the gods to kill people, thunder is the gods bowling, floods are sent by gods to punish us, famine is another curse from gods, and birth defects are a punishment from the gods, not on the child but on the parents.

    Rational people realize these are not valid explanations.

    Evolution is an attempt to rationally and with reason explain the existence of our world. Religion explains it with magic.

    I trust legitimate science but I was raised to understand that a guy in a white coat saying smoking was soothing to your throat was no more science than fifty guys in white coats saying Obamacare would be great. We've learned both were lying through their teeth.

    Anything tied to media should not be trusted. Seventy years ago my grandfather said, "You have to read both newspapers every day, Patrick, because they both lie but when you read both you can sometimes figure out what's going on.

    When you see politicians becoming millionaires without working and preachers becoming millionaires with a radio/television audience some of us can figure that out, too.

    "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."

    I suppose you don't see this in the ridiculous teachings of religion? For you to redefine bullshit is insulting and malignant. I find it insulting that religious people post their nonsense in a science forum. I'm sure a rational person could find the religion forum for you.

    If you like the magic, go for it. As an atheist, I don't mind. I don't want you trying to force me to follow your religion.
    Last edited by patrickt; 07-18-2019 at 10:50 AM.

  2. #32
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 33.0%

    Swedgin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    16,131
    Thanks
    8,135
    Thanked: 20,499
    Rep Power
    21474858
    I don't trust the media, period.

    I used to, even though I have always known that the MSM is biased.

    But, after they have been caught, outright LYING, on numerous occasions, I have learned my lesson.
    Al Swearengen: What's your partner so mad about all the time?
    Sol Star: He's not mad.
    Al Swearengen: He's got a mean way of being happy.



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

    patrickt (07-19-2019)

  4. #33
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    525
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked: 357
    Rep Power
    3571422
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    @CWF

    There have been many attempts to explain lightning, thunder, floods, famine, and birth defects and may of the explanations were based on faith. Lightning comes from the gods to kill people, thunder is the gods bowling, floods are sent by gods to punish us, famine is another curse from gods, and birth defects are a punishment from the gods, not on the child but on the parents.

    Rational people realize these are not valid explanations.

    Evolution is an attempt to rationally and with reason explain the existence of our world. Religion explains it with magic.

    I trust legitimate science but I was raised to understand that a guy in a white coat saying smoking was soothing to your throat was no more science than fifty guys in white coats saying Obamacare would be great. We've learned both were lying through their teeth.

    Anything tied to media should not be trusted. Seventy years ago my grandfather said, "You have to read both newspapers every day, Patrick, because they both lie but when you read both you can sometimes figure out what's going on.

    When you see politicians becoming millionaires without working and preachers becoming millionaires with a radio/television audience some of us can figure that out, too.

    "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."

    I suppose you don't see this in the ridiculous teachings of religion? For you to redefine bullshit is insulting and malignant. I find it insulting that religious people post their nonsense in a science forum. I'm sure a rational person could find the religion forum for you.

    If you like the magic, go for it. As an atheist, I don't mind. I don't want you trying to force me to follow your religion.
    You, kind sir, are the one who brought religion into the discussion. You. So you insult yourself.

    Furthermore, it is quite typical that an atheist is easily offended by religion. So typical. Do you think that you and your ilk own science? Does science mean knowledge? Is the discussion of knowledge restricted to atheism, or abject foolishness which is the same thing?

    Take your offense to the moderators of this forum. And just to make it plain to you. God is science. Evolution is the fairy tale. Nearly all religion is fraud. And you are offensive in your willful ignorance.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CWF For This Useful Post:

    HawkTheSlayer (07-19-2019)

  6. #34
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First ClassSocial1 year registered
    Overall activity: 46.0%

    Pork Chop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    2,445
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked: 2,643
    Rep Power
    0
    ^ Pistols at dawn gentlemen?

  7. #35
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points31 days registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Tinhatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    113
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked: 215
    Rep Power
    429500
    [QUOTE=patrickt;2195042]I'm certainly glad you have your tinfoil hat on. James Randi wasn't a doubter. He was a skeptic. He would deal with "science" today just like he dealt with Uri Geller 45 years ago.


    Firstly, Randi is not dead, only snoozing in his sarcophagus (like Mumm-Ra the Ever-Living), as he awaits to be summoned to dispense more Atheistic drivel to the masses. Secondly, Randi is a professional doubter, one that has made a lifelong career out of 'disproving' various claims via disinformation and hoaxing. His modus operandi has always rested on the quaint notion that if he can create a magic trick to do whatever the claimant does, then that 'proves' what the claimant did is as fake as the magic trick. His other claim to fame is the disingenuous 'Million Dollar Challenge', carefully crafted to insure none would ever be able to win it.

    Skeptics are those with an open-mind, while cynics are closeminded fanatics that have already decided the issue and will defend that decision with rabid tenacity. In other words, the difference between cynics and skeptics is about the same difference between atheists and agnostics. As for your claim "He would deal with "science" today just like he dealt with Uri Geller 45 years ago", this is his official mouthpiece:

    Subscribe | Skeptical Inquirer

    I challenge you to show me even one article from any issue of this magazine (very first issue til current copy) that deals with science/scientists with harshness equal to that rhetoric directed against non-scientific topics. Local library has every issue, so rest assured I will be easily able to check your claims. The frauds in Science today is no different than the frauds in Religion, as is well illustrated by the links I gave.
    Last edited by Tinhatter; 07-24-2019 at 02:48 AM. Reason: forum software continues to rearrange what I try to post

  8. #36
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 69.0%

    teeceetx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    17,025
    Thanks
    19,470
    Thanked: 20,173
    Rep Power
    21474860
    Science is now purely a political animal. There are few scientists who can keep an open mind, especially when their paycheck demands they come up with politically correct "science". Climate Science makes that abundantly clear! The real science happens in the deepest darkest recesses of the government, where it stays.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to teeceetx For This Useful Post:

    JustPassinThru (07-27-2019)

  10. #37
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocial31 days registered
    Overall activity: 14.0%

    Physics Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    314
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked: 336
    Rep Power
    2791738
    Well, I am a scientist with degrees in more than one field.

    Let alone trust Science-media (whatever that is), science itself is being manipulated with money and threat.

    Evolution is only a Theory, according to the scientific method. If a scientist points that out in an attempt to keep it from being taught as an indisputable proven truth, they are punished.

    AGW CANNOT be proven, yet if a scientist speaks against it they are treated as a pariah. They say AGW is proven by "consensus", there is no such mechanism in the scientific method.

    Much of current science is a tyranny, not an honest search for truth.
    Scientist, Evangelical Christian - reformed, father, entrepreneur, hunter, outdoorsman, motorcyclist, Constitutional Conservative.

  11. #38
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    SharetheHedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    8,702
    Thanks
    911
    Thanked: 8,128
    Rep Power
    13033846
    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.


    There is a very logical perspective which MAY solve many problems of BOTH the biblical creationism and atheistic evolution viewpoints. That a superior intelligence (of some kind) "created" life forms, culminating in man, THROUGH an evolutionary process. I have a hard time believing that evolution occurred without some type of intelligent "supervision" and I also have a hard time believing that man was SPONTANEOUSLY created, as a complete and mature human being, from "DIRT".

    But believing that SOME premises of both ideas may be basically correct, and that SOME details of both ideas are incorrect, just seems much more probable to me? That BOTH concepts have some evidences to offer, but that NEITHER concept, in and of itself, answers ALL the questions, makes the most sense.
    Last edited by SharetheHedge; 08-11-2019 at 12:52 PM.
    "If you think they hate Trump now, wait till his policies start working." (Dennis Miller)

    "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." (Benjamin Franklin)


    "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." ​(Aristotle)

  12. #39
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 61.0%

    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
    28,333
    Thanks
    3,454
    Thanked: 16,732
    Rep Power
    21474871
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator Monroe View Post
    They have hidden the Truth for over a hundred years
    I'm always suspicious when someone prints truth with a capital-T. What usually follows is nonsense.

  13. #40
    Gift Giver - V.I.P. Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialCreated Album picturesTagger First ClassVeteranCreated Blog entry
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    potlatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    9,503
    Thanks
    14,472
    Thanked: 12,412
    Rep Power
    21474850
    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.

    --------------------------------
    Yep, Scientists admonishments are always in flux. One year they tell us eggs and coffee are bad for us and 5yrs later they 'find' that they aren't that bad and even have good effects.



    My grandmother smoked, my mother smoked and I smoked and all of our many children were and are healthy. Like many things, if second hand smoke only harms a few, like asthmatics, it is deemed harmful to all. If one child in a school is allergic to peanuts, no child in the school can have them...…



    The scientists believe in Earth Warming - but twice when they sent ships to check the melting of glaciers, they not only found none, and the ships were completely iced in and had to be rescued.
    Last edited by potlatch; 08-11-2019 at 01:26 PM.


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
  •