| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2006 01:57:24 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The main argument by people like Dawkins (again I have provided a way for everyone to view this documentary on the previous page for free) is that that sort of irrational mentality, the one who would kill someone over a comic, discriminate and hurt someone for being gay, or murder their daughter because she had sex before you sold her into marriage, is detrimental to human society and has been throughout human existence. Examples are plentiful.
|
That irrational mentality has been quite a successful strain, in an evolutionary sense.
After all, it appears to be thriving. It is apparently a good fit for human society. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:12:04 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
That irrational mentality has been quite a successful strain, in an evolutionary sense.
After all, it appears to be thriving. It is apparently a good fit for human society. |
If you consider the current state of the world thriving. I do not. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:15:32 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
That irrational mentality has been quite a successful strain, in an evolutionary sense.
After all, it appears to be thriving. It is apparently a good fit for human society. |
If you consider the current state of the world thriving. I do not. |
The optimist wants to live in the best of all possible worlds, while the pessimist is pretty sure that this is it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:30:10 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Look, science is both good and bad and you have as many mule headed scientist as you have religious fanatics and both of these tend to take advantage of their supposed knowledge to misinform the populance at large. |
Show me one scientist who commands millions of followers who is even 1/8th as insane as Pat Robertson. |
Carl Sagan, since deceased.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that̢۪s more BS. |
Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:06:48 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
|
Show me one scientist who commands millions of followers who is even 1/8th as insane as Pat Robertson.
Carl Sagan, since deceased. |
Carl Sagan? wtf?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that̢۪s more BS. |
Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells. |
You got one there, what an asshole that guy. Although those papers were not peer reviewed as the Seoul National University determined the fabrication of evidence and fired him and many were often suspecius because he did not always provide a paper with his claims when he held press conferences.
Also the Seoul internal panel to investigate the work said afterwords Hwang's misconduct is "a grave act damaging the foundation of science." It was not taken lightly.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 17:11:16. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:31:46 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
|
Show me one scientist who commands millions of followers who is even 1/8th as insane as Pat Robertson.
Carl Sagan, since deceased. |
Carl Sagan? wtf? |
Here is something that Carl Sagan wrote:
"I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I'm high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say 'Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!' "
I consider this writing to be evidence that he qualifies as being ( having been ) at least 1/8th as insane as Pat Robertson.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that̢۪s more BS. |
Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells. |
You got one there, what an asshole that guy. Although those papers were not peer reviewed as the Seoul National University determined the fabrication of evidence and fired him and many were often suspecius because he did not always provide a paper with his claims when he held press conferences.
Also the Seoul internal panel to investigate the work said afterwords Hwang's misconduct is "a grave act damaging the foundation of science." It was not taken lightly. |
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. The journal SCIENCE. According to their own Web Site ( ref: here
"Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. Our offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, U.K., welcome submissions from all fields of science and from any source." ( emphasis mine )
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 17:33:08. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:37:26 PM · #207 |
| Bull Poop. Pat Robertson is a complete NUT JOB! IMHO |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:43:02 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by RonB:
"Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. Our offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, U.K., welcome submissions from all fields of science and from any source." ( emphasis mine ) |
Even if the claims were peer reviewed, which they weren't, peer review isn't a very high bar. It is a bar, but not a very high one. More of an initial sanity check. The whole idea of scientific discourse is you put ideas out there and the good ones stand up.
Peer-review isn't some mystical stamp of truthfulness, just an initial review by people who know what they are talking about, that the work makes sense and has some value. I've published quite a few peer reviewed papers and been on the review panels for many more.
The real test is the one that happens afterwards, when the work really gets reviewed by the community at large. This particular case is a fine example of the scientific method working. It didn't stand up to the real critical peer review - questions were asked - it fell down. The fabrications were brought to light. The system works.
This isn't an example of 'mainstream science' purposely misinforming the populace. It is a fine example of standard scientific method catching one bad apple trying to put one over on the populace.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 17:59:42. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:46:23 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ... |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 05:59:27 PM · #210 |
| I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:00:10 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ... |
welcome to the fair and balanced no-spin zone |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:01:19 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And show me examples of mainstream science purposely misinforming the populace at large or else that̢۪s more BS. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Hwang Woo-suk - who claimed, in a peer-reviewed journal, to have successfuly cloned human stem cells. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
(â€Â¦) those papers were not peer reviewed (â€Â¦) |
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
LOL! Bravo, sir, bravo! Have you ever considered becoming a street hawker playing three card monte with the tourists?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:02:51 PM · #213 |
Also just as another friendly reminder, the Richard Dawkins documentary that this thread was started about can be downloaded with the following instructions.
I think it would be wise for people to know what the subject matter is they are suppost to be discussing:
Originally posted by milo655321:
MM,
How do you do the bit-torrent thing? Thanks. |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This is bittorrent; Wiki Bittorrent.
Download this tiny free program; uTorrent and install. More info on uTorrent here; www.utorrent.com
When you click on the links I provided to download the Dawkins movie, use uTorrent to open. It's fairly easy.
Here is "The Root of all Evil?"
Part 1
Part 2
|
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:24:11. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:08:45 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Also just as another friendly reminder, the Richard Dawkins documentary that this thread was started about can be downloaded with the following instructions. |
I got the bit torrent you suggested and listened to the first part last night. I guess I need a plug-in to watch the video, but I'm not sure what I need. I plan to download the second part and listen (watch) it this weekend.
The interview with the Islamic Jew was scary (... I never knew that women who dressed themselves in the West were "whores" and that atheists would allow people to have "sex in the middle of the street" ... funny, the things your learn ...) |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:12:19 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I didn't say that the papers were peer reviewed. I said that his claims were made in a peer-reviewed journal - as they were. |
Do you deny that you were attempting to imply that the statements themselves were peer-reviewed, despite the knowledge that only "papers" submitted to such journals -- not every ad, letter, or press release -- are actually subject to such scrutiny? Talk about "misleading" ... |
Not at all. By saying "claims", of course I meant to imply that the statements ( claims ) were peer-reviewed.
First of all, if one is to believe the journal's own hype, then the claims / statements / papers must have been "peer-reviewed" else they would not have been published.
Secondly, Science didn't publish just ONE paper, but TWO ( not counting the one about cloning dogs ).
And, thirdly, since many have discounted the credibility of non "peer-reviewed" literature in the past,
- as in this quotation leveled against me in another thread:
Originally posted by milo655321:
"Again, what mainstream science texts and peer-reviewed literature are you getting these ideas from?" |
- I didn't want to miss the opportunity to point out that "peer-reviewed" does not automatically mean "true" or "factual", no matter how many "peers" "review" the claims / statements / papers.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 18:14:34. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:17:26 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:42:58 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
Quantitative post-mortem psychoanalysis!
Your talents are wasted here for sure -- the tabloids surely have a keyboard ready for your diagnosis of a number of popular personalities ... |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:48:25 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I'm sorry but Carl Sagan in no way is on any sort of the same playing field as Pat Robertson. It shows alot though that you think that. |
Ah, but I never said he was. You asked for the name of a scientist who was 1/8 ( i.e. 12.5% ) as crazy as Pat Robertson, not 100% as crazy. And I while I agree that he ( Carl ) was not 100% as crazy, I DO maintain that he was at least 12.5% as crazy. |
Quantitative post-mortem psychoanalysis!
Your talents are wasted here for sure -- the tabloids surely have a keyboard ready for your diagnosis of a number of popular personalities ... |
Thanks. But I'd have to at least share the job with MadMordegon and thegrandwazoo, whose talents at diagnosis may actually be BETTER than mine ( if one is to believe their own postings ). |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:54:25 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks. But I'd have to at least share the job with MadMordegon and thegrandwazoo, whose talents at diagnosis may actually be BETTER than mine ( if one is to believe their own postings ). |
It would make a fascinating film to see the three of you interview for the job ... if I joined you we could have a foursome for golf afterwards : ) |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:01:07 PM · #220 |
Yeah Pat is a Nut Job no doubt about it. Thanks for thinking of me.
The Wazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:01:44 PM · #221 |
Yeah Im in for golf!
I will get us a tee time at the TPC in Scottsdale. Cool with you guys?
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:09:55. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:08:05 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Yeah Im in for golf! |
Uh oh! I'm terrible (at golf).
Perhaps it deserves its own thread, but I believe there's a viable case to be made for golf being the root of all evil ...
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 19:09:14. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:10:37 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Yeah Im in for golf! |
Uh oh! I'm terrible (at golf).
Perhaps it deserves its own thread, but I believe there's a viable case to be made for golf being the root of all evil ... |
You might be right General. You might be right. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:22:43 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I got the bit torrent you suggested and listened to the first part last night. I guess I need a plug-in to watch the video, but I'm not sure what I need. I plan to download the second part and listen (watch) it this weekend.
The interview with the Islamic Jew was scary (... I never knew that women who dressed themselves in the West were "whores" and that atheists would allow people to have "sex in the middle of the street" ... funny, the things your learn ...) |
Milo, I forgot to add people would probably need a Codec. Download and install this Codec Pack and you should be able to view the movie normally. Sorry bout that. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 07:42:02 PM · #225 |
Speak about misleading. take a look at the concerned boobyheads who are attributing earth warming to our way of life. Well here is a stellar little observation to consider:
Mars must be inhabited by greedy Americans driving big SUVs and pumping big fumes into their atmosphere because mars is going through a warming cycle. lol
It was at the start of this very thread wherein the scientist displayed fear of religion gaining ground.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:59 PM EDT.
