(May 17, 2018 at 9:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 6:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Really, the AIDS for god thing again where you were caught in a lie? You have no credibility here.

He lied about having AIDS?!

Might not be a lie, but a misunderstanding of the diagnosis.  Could be an autoimmune condition rather than an immunodeficiency syndrome -- same body system but malfunctioning in opposite ways.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 9:34 am)Shell B Wrote: So you know enough about astrophysics to say they’re wrong?

As I said this comes from scientist making the statement. What's wrong with repeating them.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 2:21 am)Mathilda Wrote: I suspect that you didn't speak to a real professional scientist. Which field are you talking about for a start? Things can be very different for each field. See, if you had moaned about the pressure to publish or perish it would have given your post more credibility, but what you said is more akin to a popular misconception by non-scientists.

like I posted to ShellB, it was not my statement it came from another on a National Geographic show.

OK so now we're getting closer to the truth here. You didn't actually speak to a scientist in person, you saw something on a TV program which was edited according to what someone else, a non-scientist, deemed would make for interesting viewing about one particular field and you are applying that to all of science. Let me just remind you ...

(May 17, 2018 at 12:46 am)Godscreated Wrote: Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

Truth is that every scientific field has its challenges. Astrophysics is trying to figure out what it is measuring from incredibly vast distances with very little data. So of course there are going to be lots of hypotheses. It's part of the process. Give it slightly more data and the vast majority of those hypotheses will be discarded. Cellular biology has vast amounts of data to sift through so they have to mine for any pattern they can. A cynic being edited for ratings on a TV program would say they are just looking for patterns with no understanding. But that's how the understanding comes about in time. In Artificial Intelligence a cynic such as me could claim that people are writing smart programs and calling them intelligent when it really they are not, but it's still part of the process as you need to find out the scope of any technique so you can then understand why it is limited and why natural intelligence is the way it is.

But instead you saw a generic scientist on a TV program talk about the challenges specific to his own particular field and applied that to all of science because you need to convince yourself that your own non-scientific personal religious 'truth' is valid.

(May 18, 2018 at 2:23 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote: As I said this comes from scientist making the statement. What's wrong with repeating them.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Godscreated Wrote: like I posted to ShellB, it was not my statement it came from another on a National Geographic show.

OK so now we're getting closer to the truth here. You didn't actually speak to a scientist in person, you saw something on a TV program which was edited according to what someone else, a non-scientist, deemed would make for interesting viewing about one particular field and you are applying that to all of science. Let me just remind you ...

An atheist scientist made the statement on an atheistic show that did not need to be edited, since you seem to think all of the things a Christian has to say to you is lies I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.

(May 17, 2018 at 12:46 am)Godscreated Wrote: Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

Truth is that every scientific field has its challenges. Astrophysics is trying to figure out what it is measuring from incredibly vast distances with very little data. So of course there are going to be lots of hypotheses. It's part of the process. Give it slightly more data and the vast majority of those hypotheses will be discarded. Cellular biology has vast amounts of data to sift through so they have to mine for any pattern they can. A cynic being edited for ratings on a TV program would say they are just looking for patterns with no understanding. But that's how the understanding comes about in time. In Artificial Intelligence a cynic such as me could claim that people are writing smart programs and calling them intelligent when it really they are not, but it's still part of the process as you need to find out the scope of any technique so you can then understand why it is limited and why natural intelligence is the way it is.

But instead you saw a generic scientist on a TV program talk about the challenges specific to his own particular field and applied that to all of science because you need to convince yourself that your own non-scientific personal religious 'truth' is valid.[/quote]

 My religion is not non-science, some people may be but i and many of my fellow Christian friends enjoy science and follow what is being explored. Of coarse we reject some of what secular scientist have to say because we know how biased they are toward creation science which you and your ilk will not accept, even without reading about what creation science has to say about things you will automatically reject the data, so why should I pay attention to secular scientist... I do because I know they are smart and that a few do not try and fit data to their personal opinions. They make statements as to the reality of things when they have no evidence period, why do I need to do a face to face with a secular scientist in any field, I trust them to lie to a creationist from the get go.

GC

Quote:I disagree, scientist are drawing conclusions about planets they have never seen,

 

EVERYONE draws conclusions about things they have never seen (a little thing called 'inference'), but the conclusions drawn by science are always and without exception provisional ones.  That is  what makes science 'science', instead of amateurish conjecture, which is the province of religion.

Quote:like they are this or they are that. When in reality they have no clue about those unseen planets.

 
I'm sure you don't realize it, but that statement in a glaring admission that you haven't the foggiest notion of what science is or how it works.

Quote:Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven.

I'd be delighted if you could name a single scientist who is doing this, and reference the paper in which they did it, and the journal which published it.

 

Quote:This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

See my response immediately prior:  Which scientists are disappointed?  Which scientists are 'guessing'?  For bonus points, can you -without resorting to Wikipedia - name 10 famous, living scientists?

Boru

(May 18, 2018 at 4:17 am)Godscreated Wrote: Of coarse we reject some of what secular scientist have to say because we know how biased they are toward creation science which you and your ilk will not accept, even without reading about what creation science has to say about things you will automatically reject the data, so why should I pay attention to secular scientist... I do because I know they are smart and that a few do not try and fit data to their personal opinions. They make statements as to the reality of things when they have no evidence period, why do I need to do a face to face with a secular scientist in any field, I trust them to lie to a creationist from the get go.

Hah, 'creation science'. How can we use 'creation science'? What practical use is there for it? What has it ever given us that we can make use of?

Fuck all.

Fake science gives fake answers.

(May 18, 2018 at 5:28 am)robvalue Wrote: Fake science gives fake answers.

You take that back!

(May 16, 2018 at 4:58 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Homeopathy is science.

You take that back!!