TFSTFU
Trad climber
Utah
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 08:10am PT
|
The reverand Kerry king wrote those lyrics, and he's an atheist meaning he doesn't believe in god and also means he doesn't believe in Satan. 666 to him is anti-religion.
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 08:18am PT
|
Being filled with the HolySpirit, when i ask Jesus to help me in somesorta
need. When my prayer is answered with a specific answer only He and i can
understand. My Faith IS justified.
So it actually is testable and repeatable. I bet its peer reveiwed too. But is it junk science?
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2012 - 04:50pm PT
|
When my prayer is answered with a specific answer only He and i can
understand. My Faith IS justified.
But not one person ever had their prayer answered to save them from poverty, to cure them from disease, to win the lottery, or at Vegas (that can be statistically verified)
Scientifically speaking, no prayers were answered, not ever
instead, every person was able to justify his faith with an apology of why their prayers were not answered, it was God's will.
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:20pm PT
|
Bruce:
I'm surprised Jan has not chimed in here. Walking on the moon or especially among different cultures provides opportunities for thick descriptions, which are a bona fide means of scientific (interpretive) investigation. It's far more than tactile sensations. It is an experience of your own concepts failing to explain all that you see in detail; or put another way, the experiences of walking and living among others provides means by which to see yourself. (See Clifford Geertz's works.)
The other thing I will add to your discussion is this question: "What is the difference between faith and belief?" (Be careful here, Bruce; I've laid a trap.)
Dr. F.
Dude, sometimes you cause yourself more problems than you solve. You said:
But not one person ever had their prayer answered to save them from poverty, to cure them from disease, to win the lottery, or at Vegas (that can be statistically verified)
The problem with this statement is that you have no basis for the claim either way. To show that no person has ever had their prayers answered means that you'd have to have a baseline to compare it to. And what would that be? The research-design problems inherent in such a bold claim is beyond measurement, much less astute design skills.
I suspect you don't care one way or the other, and that's ok with me. Really. We're all just shooting our mouths off here on ST, anyway, no matter what the thread.
In the end, Dr. F., you have no real way of knowing anything for sure. What you have are beliefs, maybe even strong beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless. As I've been saying for a while here, take your beliefs away and what would you have for yourself? You'd have just about nothing.
You decry what religious folks are claiming, but your own claims are outlandish most of the time for a person who apparently wants science to be right and all that matters. Look closely: there is hardly a good scientist who is all that drop-dead sure about anything. You could take away something important from that.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:31pm PT
|
I have a friend... but you can't see him.
He does things for me... but I you wouldn't understand.
He will be your friend too... you just have to believe.
I have a bridge for sale...
|
|
Bruce Kay
Gym climber
BC
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:31pm PT
|
Be careful here, Bruce; I've laid a trap.)
uh oh. If I navigate successfully do I get to cross into the land of 78 virgins or is that a different program completely?
ok being a gambling man I take a kick at it.
Belief requires faith but faith does not need belief?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:32pm PT
|
you have no real way of knowing anything for sure
The efficacy of prayer has been the topic of various studies since Francis Galton first addressed it in 1872. Double-blind studies have failed to find any effect.
I don't claim that is "knowing for sure" but it is probably the best we can do on the question at present.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:33pm PT
|
...you have no real way of knowing anything for sure.
My point exactly, science offers us a way of "knowing" things in as objective a shared context as possible. Everything else - pure mental speculation which is difficult to separate from the general [subjective] fiction we all live.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:47pm PT
|
i am reminded of the bumper sticker that says, "Quick! Hire a teenager, while they still know everything!"
just for starters:
what is time?
what is space?
what is energy?
what is mass?
what is the basic nature of the connective relationship between time and space and energy and mass?
what is gravity?
how does gravity warp time and space?
how does the energy of velocity of an object warp time and mass?
what are the basic relationships between gravity A, B, and C?
how does gravity C concentrate energy in sufficient density to form matter?
what is the minimum concentration of energy that we can agree to be materialized rather than just an energy concentration?
how do you manufacture the many elements above 112 on the periodic table?
if elements 114 and 115 are theoretically stable, why are they not found in detectable quantities on our planet?
how does a flock of hundreds of birds turn all together in an instant, when a very high-speed camera capable of freeze-framing the motion of a bullet cannot identify any one bird initiating the turn? They all initiate the turn at the exact same instant so far as scientists are able to detect. There seems to be some unobservable factor that links them all intimately together
what might be that factor?
yeah, i don't know much
your experience may differ
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:53pm PT
|
Everything else - pure mental speculation
That means YOU are the mental speculator period.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
You're just plain guessing about everything and about what others know.
It means ultimately you know nothing period and all your posts are nothing but straw man attempts at stuff you know nothing about.
Stupid way to do anything ....
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 05:53pm PT
|
how does a flock of hundreds of birds turn all together in an instant, when a very high-speed camera capable of freeze-framing the motion of a bullet cannot identify any one bird initiating the turn? They all initiate the turn at the exact same instant so far as scientists are able to detect. There seems to be some unobservable factor that links them all intimately together
Which scientists? What journal?
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 06:03pm PT
|
^ Feder, Toni (October 2007). "Statistical physics is for the birds". Physics today 60 (10): 28–30. doi:10.1063/1.2800090.
^ Hildenbrandt H, Carere C and Hemelrijk CK (2010) "Self-organized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model" Behavioral Ecology, 21 (6): 1349–1359. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq149
^ Hemelrijk CK and Hildenbrandt H (2011) "Some causes of the variable shape of flocks of birds" PloS one, 6 (8): e22479. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022479
^ Project Starflag
^ Swarm behaviour model by University of Groningen
^ Spector, L.; Klein, J.; Perry, C.; and Feinstein, M. (2003). "Emergence of Collective Behavior in Evolving Populations of Flying Agents". Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2003). Springer-Verlag. Retrieved 2007-05-01.
^ "http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/02/15/herd-mentality-explained/1922.html". Retrieved on October 31st 2008.
^ Gabbai, J. M. E. (2005). Complexity and the Aerospace Industry: Understanding Emergence by Relating Structure to Performance using Multi-Agent Systems. Manchester: University of Manchester Doctoral Thesis.
^ Ibanez J, Gomez-Skarmeta A F, Blat J (2003). "DJ-boids: emergent collective behavior as multichannel radio station programming". Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. pp. 248-250. doi:10.1145/604045.604089.
^ Moere A V (2004). "Time-Varying Data Visualization Using Information Flocking Boids". Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. pp. 97-104. doi:10.1109/INFVIS.2004.65.
^ Cui Z, Shi Z (2009). "Boid particle swarm optimisation". International Journal of Innovative Computing and Applications 2 (2): 77–85. doi:10.1504/IJICA.2009.031778.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 06:14pm PT
|
how do you manufacture the many elements above 112 on the periodic table? if elements 114 and 115 are theoretically stable, why are they not found in detectable quantities on our planet?
Ed may be working on it right now.
The most likely place to manufacture such elements is in an exploding supernova, particularly if it's one that is a second or third generation star, with a higher proportion of elements other than hydrogen and helium. There may not be observable quantities of such elements on earth because they're radioactive/unstable after all, because very little is made even in a supernova, or because they became concentrated in the earth's core and mantle during differentiation, due to density, chemistry, or both. Perhaps meteorites from the cores of asteroids contain some - a few asteroids were large enough to be differentiated, and were later fractured, so if elements 112 and up exist that might be a place to look.
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2012 - 08:05pm PT
|
But not one person ever had their prayer answered to save them from poverty, to cure them from disease, to win the lottery, or at Vegas (that can be statistically verified)
The problem with this statement is that you have no basis for the claim either way.
Which would be correct. If prayer worked, then we could verify it working trough the statistics of the actual events happening.
Dying people would be healed miraculously, poor people would escape bankruptcy by winning the lottery or win big at Vegas, since there are millions of prayers every day for these things.
Prayer may have worked for some people, or so they think, but if it was compiled and looked at statistically, the times it did work would be the same as chance.
That is the hard line that seems valid scientifically speaking.
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2012 - 08:09pm PT
|
what is time?
what is space?
what is energy?
what is mass?
what is the basic nature of the connective relationship between time and space and energy and mass?
what is gravity?
Ed can answer any of these with ease
I could, but maybe later this week I will have the time
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 08:16pm PT
|
^^^^^^^
Just see the so called scientist trying to convince himself by talking to himself in circles over and over endlessly .....
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2012 - 08:16pm PT
|
whoops
just passed the Music thread
sorry
|
|
Dr. F.
Ice climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2012 - 08:24pm PT
|
we know much about those things above (^^), understand them, and can describe them to a hgih degree of detail
It cannot be said that they are not understood, nor are they non-understandable,
But some concepts are harder to describe to everyone's satisfaction,
like the word = love
we don't know that much about it, but enough to define it and categorize it, which is enough to be able to move on and say that the concept is understood, case closed.
MikeL. and some others will never be satisfied, that's their prerogative, their belief.
Like someone said above, science is a method of understanding the world, the understanding offered by science is all there is, call it a belief or an understanding, does it matter?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 08:24pm PT
|
By making movies of their flocks and analyzing, frame by frame, how each individual bird moved, he was able to show that a turn ripples through a flock just as a cheerleading wave passes through sports fans at a stadium. He explained the finding with the name of his theory: the “chorus line hypothesis.” An individual dancer who waits for her immediate neighbor to move before initiating her kick will be too slow; similarly, a dunlin watches a number of birds around it, not just its nearest neighbors, for cues. This finding put to rest the old telepathy idea.
“The wave was propagating through the flock at least three times faster than could be explained if they were just watching their immediate neighbors,” says Potts. “But there was probably nothing extrasensory going on.”
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/flight-plan-0?page=2
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2012 - 08:29pm PT
|
how do you manufacture the many elements above 112 on the periodic table? if elements 114 and 115 are theoretically stable, why are they not found in detectable quantities on our planet?
Ed may be working on it right now.
who's theory?
I'm not working on it right now, but the theory is quite complex as it is a system of 100's of fermions in a strongly coupled quantum mechanical system. The early ideas that the so-called doubly-magic numbers of protons and neutrons in a nuclei might give rise to stable Super Heavy Elements has given way to a much more complex view of nuclear structure.
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
the answer to the question is that the theories were wrong...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!