The elegant nature of science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 03:18 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  ....... the early 1900's, when Eisenhower was shocked by the USSR's launch of Sputnik.

[Image: giphy.gif]

That was a pretty impressive display of ignorance. Say, was it hard to become so ignorant? I mean there must have been a lot of stuff that had to be unlearned to become so stupid. What method did you use? How long did it take? How many hours of nonsense did you have to internalize daily? Consider

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
01-11-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(18-11-2011 11:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I wanted to start a thread where we could post some videos about the beauty of science and nature.
I must admit to being very emotional at the elegant story that science can tell us about our universe and how we fit in it.

And you think such elegance just popped into existence, from nothing?
Where is the "science" for such fantasy?

As to the eternal question of "Who made God?" the answer is elegantly given by Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University. His one hour lecture is titled "A Matter of Gravity." You should absolutely hate it. He answers the condescension and arrogance of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 05:24 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 04:44 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(01-11-2016 03:18 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  ....... the early 1900's, when Eisenhower was shocked by the USSR's launch of Sputnik.

I misspoke. My apologies. In the early 1900's, Stalin championed Darwin for its atheist pretensions. He spread the word far and wide, urging Adolph Hitler to read it.

Enter Sputnik and Eisenhower. Eisenhower assumed that Darwinism advanced science and accounted for the USSR's preempting America in the space race.

Now, does that make sense? I knew these details, but communicated poorly. So crucify me. Your hatred is so very.... atheist... and good.... and commendable. Just like your condescension.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 04:44 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  How long did it take? How many hours of nonsense did you have to internalize daily?

Deesse, since you are so very enlightened in all things scientific, would you kindly explain to all those reading this thread the space of hemoglobin?
What are some of the factors accounting for that space?

If that is asking too much, why don't you just tell us the range of pKa values (for acids, not hemoglobin).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 05:31 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 05:24 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  
(01-11-2016 04:44 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  

I misspoke. My apologies. In the early 1900's, Stalin championed Darwin for its atheist pretensions. He spread the word far and wide, urging Adolph Hitler to read it.

Enter Sputnik and Eisenhower. Eisenhower assumed that Darwinism advanced science and accounted for the USSR's preempting America in the space race.

Now, does that make sense? I knew these details, but communicated poorly. So crucify me. Your hatred is so very.... atheist... and good.... and commendable. Just like your condescension.

One of your first posts here was to criticize someone for their use of "there", "their", and "they're" so if you can't take it don't dish it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
01-11-2016, 06:48 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 03:18 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  The ubiquitous pretense of atheists is that science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, history's greatest scientists were men of faith, rather than atheists, until the early 1900's, when Eisenhower was shocked by the USSR's launch of Sputnik. Eisenhower then spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to promote Darwinian evolution, and its pretense of materialism/atheism. So with no further "need" for God, the gates to godlessness and its attendant lies were opened.

The Ivy League colleges were founded by Christians, not atheists.
I was born in a Christian hospital, not an atheist hospital. So were my wife and daughters.

While proclaiming goodness, atheists actually have no basis for morality - none whatsoever. Your own personal pride serves as your claim to morality, and pride was of course the original sin. In that regard, pride and attendant hubris, you are identical to the Islamic terrorists you so enjoy pointing your fingers at.

Atheists will NEVER be able to spin the absolute science embodied in so many passages of the Holy Bible, starting with the first sentence of the first chapter of the first book of Genesis, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." This long preceded the Steady State Theory, embraced by scientists throughout the world - that the universe was eternal and unending. They were dead wrong, as you now know, but you cannot ever admit that the Bible was right long before *science* was.

Your mockery and condescension and hatred will avail you little, here on this earth, or afterward. You have no hope.
Momentum is conserved. Energy is conserved. Matter is conserved. The human spirit too is conserved.

Christians and Jews have the blessed hope and the future. Atheists have neither. Ahh, you say, but what about all the other religions? What about them. They are not your concern. You have rejected them all.

You’re fucking up a perfectly good thread with your douchebaggery. Go post on the religious threads and don’t be such a twat waffle.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
01-11-2016, 10:39 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 05:31 PM)pablo Wrote:  One of your first posts here was to criticize someone for their use of "there", "their", and "they're" so if you can't take it don't dish it.

1. That post had been extant for a long time, weeks? Months?
2. Not one of you brilliant atheists pointed it out, notwithstading your relentless claim of intellectual superiority.
3. I acknowledged my mistake, apologized for it, and explained my faux pas.

I will continue to dish out anything and everthing I wish to dish out.
It is impossible to placate an army of condescending, arrogant haters, who could hardly "dish out" to me any more than you already have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2016, 11:20 PM
RE: The elegant nature of science
Wow.

What is wrong with you?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-11-2016, 01:26 AM
RE: The elegant nature of science
(01-11-2016 05:29 PM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  
(01-11-2016 04:44 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  How long did it take? How many hours of nonsense did you have to internalize daily?

Deesse, since you are so very enlightened in all things scientific, would you kindly explain to all those reading this thread the space of hemoglobin?
What are some of the factors accounting for that space?

If that is asking too much, why don't you just tell us the range of pKa values (for acids, not hemoglobin).

Just to be clear, i was damn serious with my question. Its not my fault that you have internalized such an amount of insane bullshit, that asking how you came so far makes the question look like its a kind of sarcasm. Its your lack of education and your amount of ignorance that makes this look so ridiculous. Its pretty sad, but thats how it is (the status of your scientific education).

So, how much of this bullshit do you read a day to internalize it?
I am sure it was tried (when you were a kid/teen) to give you a proper education. Most second to first world nations are able to give their citizend a fair basic education. Since are so eager to demonstrate that you have left even basic knowledge behind: How hard was it to leave your education behind? How much effort was it to unlearn all this basic knowledge that you surely must have had?
How did you even come to this insane idea? Did someone hand a watchtower pamphlet to you or wtf happened?

Seriulsy, how much effort is it? I cant imagine that someome like you is just spreading random nonsense. You are clearly showing that you went deep down that rabbit hole of half wit knowledge if you want to talk about the composition of human blood. Or is that just some random argument you picke dup on your favourite website of ignorance? How hard is that? I dont know, since i dont engage in trying to become ignorant.

Please, dont try throwing around random half witted bullshit about hemoglobin (i am sure you have the immune system up your sleeve, as well as thermodynamics). It would be possible to prove your nonsense wrong, but it would take quite some effort, and then you wouldnt acknowledge it anyway.

But let me ask you a final question:
You want to talk about hemoglobin (biology), evolution and god (no pun intended) knows what else and are going to an atheist website? Why not discuss this with experts? Why not go to some forum full of biologists or any kind of scientists forum for that matter? If you would be interested in a honest and fruitful exchange of ideas you would, but you werent. Consider


Quote:That was a pretty impressive display of ignorance. Say, was it hard to become so ignorant? I mean there must have been a lot of stuff that had to be unlearned to become so stupid. What method did you use? How long did it take? How many hours of nonsense did you have to internalize daily?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
02-11-2016, 03:41 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2016 04:30 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: The elegant nature of science
R-man wrote:

Quote:history's greatest scientists were men of faith, rather than atheists, until the early 1900's,

That could be because they faced persecution, even death, at the hands of the church authorities if they did not, at least, pay lip service to the authorised faith. That goes for Islam as well as Christianity. I think Buddhism was a little more relaxed about it.

When the Popes and their troops, literally their own armies, ruled the roost thousands died for simply not agreeing with them. This occured before, during and after your namesake period.

Oh, and the Renaissance was in science in the arts and science - selectively patronized by the church. They were probably all for new weapons to kill those who opposed them, including dissenting Christians.

There seem to be good, gentle, charitable Christians; bad, violent, vindictive Christians and somewhere in the middle Christians. Guessing you are of second variety?

Strange, there are also good, gentle, charitable atheists; bad, violent, vindictive atheists and those somewhere in the middle.

Just being human, eh?

Anyway, I still keep that image in my mind of the Haitian woman thanking God for saving her life - with no apparent regard for the thousands that he killed lying around her.

But, of course that was an act of nature, not of God . . . Oh, hang on, is not his oneness omni-everything? Is there a design error there? No, how could the omni-everything make errors?

Hmm, how could he design a creature so full of faults as is man?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: