Teach Me Science

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Teach Me Science

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

What is the scientific method and how is it different than the way we teach and learn ourselves? If I were the inventor of the airplane wouldn't I be employing the methodology of science just as if I were learning how to change a flat tire or make a website? How would they be similar and how would they differ?
I no longer post here

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8153
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #61

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote:I'll take this as an admition that Jehovah is no different then the majority of god concepts out there, in that it, like the others, provides answers to its followers as to why they are here and what happens to them when they die.
If being a god means providing people with answers to why they are here and what happens to them when they die wouldn't most atheists be gods?
I lack the patience and the crayons... Gah, I'll give it another go.
God concepts supply followers with answers as to why/how they are here and what happens to them when they die. The Jehovah god is no different in this respect. What we are clearly asking you is:
"You could clarify the issue by indicating what distinguishes Jehovah from all of those other gods."

Atheists are humans that don't find any of the available god concepts offered to be valid explanations. This is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of obfuscating the word god. You make the term meaningless by claiming that atheists can be gods. Your being nonsensical IMO.
What's do you and Jehovah have in common?
Now that is some gall! Numerous requests have been made to you to indicate what distinguishes Jehovah from all those other gods. You fail to answer and have the gall to ask me this? Guess I'll lead by example.

I'm not aware of an actual Jehovah, but I'm familiar with the concept.
We both seem to suffer at times from very human failings, like jealousy for example. I'm only human though...
Does that make you God?
I Googled the word for you, perhaps you can sort it out?
God
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I'm not a god it would seem, but when you use the word, who can really tell!
Clownboat wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:56 pmIf you were to ask the 1st 100 religious people you found on the street, virtually all of them would have a god concept that informs them as to why (or how) they are here and what happens to them when they die. You know this to be true as do I and those reading here.
No. It would depend upon what street it was. China?
You're not in China. Clearly I'm talking about streets available to you as I didn't mention anything about traveling to get to another country to get to the street. I'm just suprised you didn't take this to streets on the moon or something even more nonsensical to avoid my point.
The Christians and Muslims would.

All of us here know this already.
Religion Adherents Percentage
Christianity 2.4 billion 29%
Islam 1.9 billion 24%
Clownboat wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:56 pmThat you stretch the meaning of 'god' into becoming nearly useless in debate is just a mechanism you have in place in order to protect your preconceived religious beliefs it would seem.

Person A: Makes an argument about a god concept.
You: "Well, since a toilet seat can be a god, I fail to understand your argument".
Meanwhile, the rest of us are following along without any issue.

An example from this thread:
"You could clarify the issue by indicating what distinguishes Jehovah from all of those other gods."
Your response was: "The only thing all gods have in common is veneration. Because that's what a god is. Someone or something venerated."

Rather than address the issue and help others understand, you chose once again to obfuscate the point. Now you have doubled down and are blaming the victims by accusing them of not having the ability to understand the simple god concept and word. The lack of substance in your replies is rather telling.
Wow. It really is a pity I can't speak my mind when I get responses like this. You want to come over to my forum and talk about this?
Just another dodge.
If you did not obfuscate the point, then show me that I'm wrong. If you were not blaming me (atheists really, but I think you think I'm an atheist, but whatever) "for not understanding the simple god concept and word" then show that I'm wrong for accusing you of such a thing.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #62

Post by brunumb »

DavidLeon wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:13 am So you're going to say if you're a baker selling goods to the public you have to make a cake depicting genitalia. You have to make a cake depicting bestiality or child pornography. You have to make a cake with Nazi themes. You have to make a cake with an atheist theme. You have to make a cake with religious themes. Or, for that matter, you can't make a cake with any of those themes. It's nonsense.
But it's not the cake itself. Sure you can refuse to produce a cake that is offensive, but to refuse to provide a cake because the customer is gay is the real nonsense.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #63

Post by DavidLeon »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:44 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:13 am So you're going to say if you're a baker selling goods to the public you have to make a cake depicting genitalia. You have to make a cake depicting bestiality or child pornography. You have to make a cake with Nazi themes. You have to make a cake with an atheist theme. You have to make a cake with religious themes. Or, for that matter, you can't make a cake with any of those themes. It's nonsense.
But it's not the cake itself. Sure you can refuse to produce a cake that is offensive, but to refuse to provide a cake because the customer is gay is the real nonsense.
Well, yes, it is nonsense but people should be allowed to be stupid. You shouldn't legislate the nonsensical because we are all stupid in some way. What is it Penn & Teller used to say? Everyone's got a a gris gris.
I no longer post here

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #64

Post by brunumb »

DavidLeon wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:51 pm You shouldn't legislate the nonsensical because we are all stupid in some way.

You mean like speeding, not wearing seat belts, drink driving or underage drinking, urinating in public and so on? I know, why not just let the bigots and profoundly stupid run wild and do what they like.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #65

Post by DavidLeon »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:15 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:51 pm You shouldn't legislate the nonsensical because we are all stupid in some way.

You mean like speeding, not wearing seat belts, drink driving or underage drinking, urinating in public and so on? I know, why not just let the bigots and profoundly stupid run wild and do what they like.
Laws are designed to do only one thing. Protect your life, liberty and property. If a law doesn't do that it is lawlessness. Legislating to keep you from killing yourself in accident, like for example, seat belt laws, are lawless. It's up to you to decide whether or not a seat belt is a protection or not. The seat belt law was designed to produce an unlawful tax by consent.

The US constitution says that any american citizen should be able to travel throughout the country without being stopped. Because in some countries they can stop you any time to ask for your papers. That isn't freedom. So you should be able to drive a car, without licence or plates or insurance without having to stop at lights, to be pulled over etc. Black's Book of Law states that the only person needing a licence is a driver. A driver is defined as someone operating a vehicle for commercial use. So you aren't a driver in your car.

Okay, well, the government, over time, decided they needed more tax revenue and a way to keep track of us. So they introduced the driver's licence. When you apply for one, which you don't have to by the way, and you sign it, you sign yourself into understanding (standing under) the statutes and regulations. You now have to stop at lights, have a licence, plates, insurance, etc. These aren't laws, they are statutes and regulations you agree to by consent.

When you sign a birth certificate you sign your child over to the government. Until the 1930's when birth certificates were introduced, for the government to come and take away someone's child would be illegal kidnapping. But now, they own the child. They can come and get it any time they want. There's some fascinating information online about the straw man / birth certificate.

Of course, someone with as much knowledge as you would simply dismiss it as conspiracy theory or label me a - what are those people called? I can't remember. Not hippies but constitutionalists? Blasphemies. The men in gray suits have got to keep their eyes on anyone reading the constitution. Yeah, government mandated and operated schools keep us real dumb.

Anyway, I would rather have the drunk drivers and the public urinators out there on the street than have the law makers running wild in the District of Washington. Look that up DC and the constitution.

I no longer post here

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #66

Post by brunumb »

DavidLeon wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:34 am Laws are designed to do only one thing. Protect your life, liberty and property. If a law doesn't do that it is lawlessness. Legislating to keep you from killing yourself in accident, like for example, seat belt laws, are lawless. It's up to you to decide whether or not a seat belt is a protection or not.
Sorry, but that is utterly absurd.

You said "Well, yes, it is nonsense but people should be allowed to be stupid." Actions that put your life and the lives of others at risk are basically stupid. It is not wise to let the stupid decide whether something is safe or not.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #67

Post by DavidLeon »

brunumb wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:33 pm
DavidLeon wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:34 am Laws are designed to do only one thing. Protect your life, liberty and property. If a law doesn't do that it is lawlessness. Legislating to keep you from killing yourself in accident, like for example, seat belt laws, are lawless. It's up to you to decide whether or not a seat belt is a protection or not.
Sorry, but that is utterly absurd.

You said "Well, yes, it is nonsense but people should be allowed to be stupid." Actions that put your life and the lives of others at risk are basically stupid. It is not wise to let the stupid decide whether something is safe or not.
The fact that it is not wise to let the stupid decide whether something is safe or not is exactly my point. We should decide for ourselves, and the fundamental principles of our republic is founded upon that very obvious fact. We've deteriorated into specific mobs of fearful crazies who think legislation is the solution to all of those problems. It isn't. For example, instead of mandating seat belts drive like you have some sense. If you do that you will see the maniac coming at you and act accordingly instead of talking on your cell phone while sipping a big gulp and imagining you are Bon Jovi at Madison Square Garden.
I no longer post here

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #68

Post by brunumb »

DavidLeon wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:43 am We've deteriorated into specific mobs of fearful crazies who think legislation is the solution to all of those problems. It isn't. For example, instead of mandating seat belts drive like you have some sense. If you do that you will see the maniac coming at you and act accordingly instead of talking on your cell phone while sipping a big gulp and imagining you are Bon Jovi at Madison Square Garden.
You can't legislate against stupidity, but you can use legislation to help mitigate the effects of the chronically stupid.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8153
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #69

Post by Clownboat »

DavidLeon wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:43 am We've deteriorated into specific mobs of fearful crazies who think legislation is the solution to all of those problems. It isn't. For example, instead of mandating seat belts drive like you have some sense. If you do that you will see the maniac coming at you and act accordingly instead of talking on your cell phone while sipping a big gulp and imagining you are Bon Jovi at Madison Square Garden.
You can't legislate against stupidity, but you can use legislation to help mitigate the effects of the chronically stupid.
How much legislation will it take to mitigate the stupid?

No one knows how many laws there are in the United States. Apparently, no one can count that high.

They’ve been accumulating, of course, for more than 200 years. When federal laws were first codified in 1927, they fit into a single volume. By the 1980s, there were 50 volumes of more than 23,000 pages.

And today? Online sources say that no one knows. The Internal Revenue Code alone, first codified in 1874, contains more than 3.4 million words and, if printed 60 lines to the page, is more than 7,500 pages long. There are about 20,000 laws just governing the use and ownership of guns.

New laws mean new crimes. From the start of 2000 through 2007, Congress had created at least 452 new crimes, so that at that time the total number of Federal crimes exceeded 4,450.

Of course, times change and laws need to be updated. But many laws detract from, rather than contribute to, our quality of life and overall well-being. It is impossible for anyone to know all of the laws that affect them and it is, therefore, impossible to not break any laws. How many of the 4,450 crimes have you broken?

http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federa ... e-There%3F

Is creating more laws and inventing new crimes the best go to?
Laws are needed of course, but when you are a hammer (a legislator) everything will look like a nail. Thus when a problem is detected, laws, laws, laws and more laws (and additional crimes). Such opportunities might incourage policing for profit or at least provide avenues for the police to hem someone up when they should be free. I'm not a fan of lawlesness, but at times I feel like the laws here in the US have gotten out of hand. Perhaps it is time to have a branch of government that abolishes law?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Teach Me Science

Post #70

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #69]

I'm in Australia and don't feel the oppression of legislation as you appear to do. We are currently in lockdown here in Melbourne with mandatory wearing of masks away from home. If we just expected everyone to do the right thing without some degree of enforcement I'm sure we would be in a far worse situation than we are now. There are too many people who think only about themselves.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply