Where the hell is Bill Nye the Science Guy when you need him?
Found!
(also a cameo by the one and only Carl Sagan)
Very interesting posts, everyone!
Another question: What was your exposure to science while growing up?
What kind of person do you think a scientist is?
The majority of scientists, I find, are dedicated, professional people who do it to help develop new things for the world, or to help to give us a better understanding of things we know, but not in great detail.
Of course there are a small percentage of scientists who are crooked, cooking the books on their results to back up their claims, or those who either take advantage of people, or abuse their trust, however I do not view this minority as destroying the credability of the majority.
When i was younger I believed in God and the Bible and went to church, but I have since become an Atheist.
It’s also important to note that scientists can be plain wrong. Look at “global warming”-- climate models predicted a steady rise in temps, yet the globe is in fact cooling off. In the 70’s, scientists predicted the cooling off period . How did they get it right, and modern scientists have it wrong? Perhaps the 70’s era scientists were looking at previous climate patterns, and solar cycles and correctly foresaw the cool down.
Part of me wonders if some modern climatologists buy into global warming to -a. secure govt research grants when those releasing the grants believe in global warming, or b. if some scientists just want to push an environmentalist agenda of less emissions being released?
At any rate, scientists who are skeptics are marginalized by mainstream science, journals, media, etc. But maybe the tide is turning, as the evidence can not be ignored forever. Has anyone noticed a decline in the term “global warming”, and an increase in the term “climate change”? When politics and science come together, it’s just not good.
I was raised to believe in science - my parental units never really urged me to challenge it or religion, so I got it through school etc. I was an active and overdeveloped reader as a child, and for a period in middle school only read nonfiction sciencey stuff.
Honestly - I dislike most scientists, but that issue is separate from any religious beliefs. Most of my training in Political Science focused on Bureaucracy and Methodology. And that has greatly skewed my views on scientists; I view their methodology as tainted by the shift in research funding and government funded research projects. Serendipitous research exists no longer, and I feel this hurts science in general.
Many actual real climatologists don’t believe in global warming, and actually think it’s a Government scam for a cap and trade tax and for the various world Governments to have complete power over us. The Global Elite bankers that control our Goverment and other various nations have been using Al Gore as their front man for years trying to put over the farce but in reality it’s just a scam to fulfill the elites greed and power. People are catching on so they are trying to repackage and reintroduce the scam in a new way to decieve.
Chris
Yeah. Just about everything coming out of the white house right now, is ■■■■.
Political Science is not real science, my man. Biological and life sciences are where the adventure is! As a scientist I can vouch for this. Also, as a former Poli. Sci. major, my girlfriend can vouch for this as well. We scientists are real cool people, for the most part, and are always coming up with interesting questions. Try us out! We don’t bite!
Snoop is my god. He gets me ■■’s.
Creationism is built on Faith
Science is built on research
You listen to Jim Puplava?
Political Science is not real science, my man. Biological and life sciences are where the adventure is! As a scientist I can vouch for this. Also, as a former Poli. Sci. major, my girlfriend can vouch for this as well. We scientists are real cool people, for the most part, and are always coming up with interesting questions. Try us out! We don’t bite!
Reread my post, and located where I claimed it was a “real” science. I didn’t. I said my studies have focused on Bureaucracy and Methodology. As a Scientist in training, you should be able to fully appreciate the later of those - and I’m pretty sure about my conclusions; that being that science moving away from serendipitous research is a bad thing and happens too much.
Two of my classmates, I’m in law school mind you, were science focused majors - so I have no issue with people who are scientists. My problem lies with the shift from general funding to study-focused funding in the field of science. Doesn’t make science bad, doesn’t make scientists bad, but I feel it does add a legitimate reason to be more skeptical of scientific conclusions and not always take them as fact - but that is the whole point of science anyway: testing of hypothesis and ensuring they are valid.
(And Poli Sci can be a real science when applied the right way - voter choice models are nothing but pure psychology and biology applied over a large base. Emphasis on “can”)
Political Science is not real science, my man. Biological and life sciences are where the adventure is! As a scientist I can vouch for this. Also, as a former Poli. Sci. major, my girlfriend can vouch for this as well. We scientists are real cool people, for the most part, and are always coming up with interesting questions. Try us out! We don’t bite!
I’m sure any given mathematician or physicist would have a similar condescending statement to make about biology.
Yeah. Just about everything coming out of the white house right now, is ■■■■.
:roll:
I think the actual point of that movie is that people are not allowing creationism to be studied. Not that Ben Stein believes in Creationism (which I think was spelt out clearly that he didn’t in the movie)?
I remember watching the movie, indeed the movie wasn’t about promoting Creationism but about how those that put it on the debate table get persecuted and blacklisted like a leper. However not that it’s a bad thing quite honestly… you can’t take a product of blind faith and attempt to bring it into the science debate. Science relies on something being able to be studied, tested, retested, reretested, tweeked, modified, some more testing, and you have a final conclusion until something else comes along to show why it’s wrong. ID however is simply “The Universe is too complex so… God did it.” That’s it that’s the entire kaboodle of ID there is no testing, no peer review, no adaptation, nothing. And that’s just not science.
Let people have their faith, no big whoop. Just don’t try and masquerade it as science it’s clearly not.
Oh, and another part I clearly remember about that movie. Well, after the movie was released. Ben did a round of interviews here and there and the guy is blaming Evolution/Evolutionists on Nazism! Hell he puts the crossheirs on Atheism, Communism, Abortion… all of that he puts the blame on Evolution. I mean I thought I knew the guy but then he made this movie and went around just spouting some really bizaar stuff across the radio and tvland.
Here, found one of the transcripts I saw a long time ago that made me totally shocked about Ben Stein…
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right. Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.
Come on guys. We all know that Gil Gerard used a time machiene, went back and ■■■■■■■■■■ into the primordial ooze
youtube videos
OMFG
I am offended beyond disbelief . . . . .and I love it
As far as I’m concerned
The universe began with the big bang, eventually it will collapse in a big crunch to a single massive density point which will then result in another big bang, thus the loop continues.
what caused the beginning of this i do not know, but i find comfort in the idea that it was a being that existed/exists that is on a different plane of existence, and that as he lives in a 4D plane he has the ability to manipulate our 3D universe (based on my limited understanding of 1D, 2D, 3D 4D) thus by our understanding and by our scientific views it is essentially a god by comparison.
This Higher being set in motion our universe, the result was an experiment, a perpetual experiment. Since then it may or may not have set into motion events which created life/manipulated life, but if this being did it would almost certainly have done so in a way that it seemed like it had done nothing and/or done it in such a way that it would conform to established scientific views.
Life on earth it is reasonable to assume that it either developed through chemical/biological reactions on earth brought about by volcanic eruptions on the primordial earth or that during this period a asteroid carrying life giving elements impacted on the planet creating it, either is plausible and yet both very difficult to prove, a higher being could have been the catalyst
There a several TV shows/Films that have also brought mainstream some ideas that could also fit hand in hand with this
In the futurama episode where bender is a god, “God” says if you do something right it will appear if you’ve done nothing at all, This explains how I’d view god to work
At the end of Men in black, our universe is shown as a marble in another, although not technically related to an established theory, it bares similarities to the theory that within every atom in the space between the nucleus and the electrons, exists a universe. This also could fit into my theory, as correct why creat one universe? would you not create an infinite amount? it also sits well with the Multi-verse theories as identical atoms could explain the different dimensions, and how that for each decsision a new universe is created (atomic division?)
The son of God…
it is plausible that this said being did send in an emissary to experience our universe, and Jesus could well have played that role, his existence can be explained both religiously or scientifically or rationally, he was the sun of God or a mental ill person. My personal belief is that he is the Son of this higher being
This could also explain Angels daemons etc, probes or other beings not unlike this higher being entering and experiencing our universe.
the one thing I am 100% certain of is that God is neither male or female, it may be both or neither, if it made Man in his image (the assumption he is male) then where did the idea for an opposite of male come from? it makes no sense, if he’d made us in his image and he was 1 gender and wanted us to reproduce then we would reproduce asexually, therefore i assume he is either both or neither gender and the introduction of Male and Female was to produce a way to reproduce with the maximum possibilities for individuality
I think the most startling revelation for me was when Stargate started introducing ascended beings, I’d long before this thought up this theory and watching this made me think obviously others could come to similar conclusions, better yet i can use it to help me explain my views on this higher being, i also like th idea that a being can through enlightenment ascend to this plane, thus explaining heaven and or angels… further to my previous point
AJ makes some Very good points as does Uni
I do however whole heartily respect creationists views, that is after all how they view the universe in way they can understand.
I believe there is a higher power and I hope to join it one day, that brings me comfort that after death there is more than nothing and an end to our existence