Religion

[Fenrys]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Let them test the sun, let them test rocks from pluto to know it's just a moon... Let them test something that can't get to, then tell me it's a proven fact.

I'd really like to see the results of a through study of the sun. I read an interesting theory recently about how stars may form mostly via electromagnetism rather than mostly gravity. True or not, many scientists would not even consider such an idea because it's different from what they were taught in school and considering anything outside what's allowed can blemish your reputation and cut off your grant money.

That mechanic of "don't think about anything except what we tell you to" plays out at very basic social levels too. Much of society acts as it's own Thought Police, ridiculing anyone who strays too far from the herd. Fear of being being observed as outside of the herd is motivation to posture and strut one's conformity by ridiculing those who are less afraid.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Fenrys

I'd really like to see the results of a through study of the sun. I read an interesting theory recently about how stars may form mostly via electromagnetism rather than mostly gravity. True or not, many scientists would not even consider such an idea because it's different from what they were taught in school and considering anything outside what's allowed can blemish your reputation and cut off your grant money.

That mechanic of "don't think about anything except what we tell you to" plays out at very basic social levels too. Much of society acts as it's own Thought Police, ridiculing anyone who strays too far from the herd. Fear of being being observed as outside of the herd is motivation to posture and strut one's conformity by ridiculing those who are less afraid.

Except that in order to get an advanced degree, you have to do original research.

[Fenrys]

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT

Except that in order to get an advanced degree, you have to do original research.

For certain values of original. Every new degree holder does not cause a paradigm shift in their field, nor should they be required to. Perhaps the level of resistance to alternate theories that could prove to be either more accurate or more elegant if thoroughly investigated is less than ideal.

[TheSHiFT]

I wont deny that there are social politics in science. However, when paradigm shifts occur someone gets a noble prize. If a theory has sufficient evidence to become a scientific theory, it already has substantial evidence. Every scientist I know thinks new ideas (that have evidence) are, at least, interesting. That is the good thing about science: in order for it to be considered it has to have evidence.

[TheSHiFT]

Also, do you have any articles/links on this star formation theory?

[Fenrys]

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Ele...niverse_theory
and
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

You may be able to find the documentary made by the people from that 2nd website on youtube or elsewhere. "Thunderbolts of the Gods"

Another interesting documentary is "Black Whole" by Nassim Haramein, which you can also download from various places online.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

I run around making claims that have no backing? YOU base your theory on facts presented in the most logical fashion by people who are BARELY more intelligent than you. That makes you have backing? Because it has logic?

No.

You and everyone else who denies a 'god' is in denial to the fact there could POSSIBLY be a deity. YOU cling on any POTENTIAL facts for a theory or hypothesis that has been created, by humans, that can explain everything today. Then swear it's perfected and true.

Sorry brother, they don't even know what the missing link in evolution is. You put YOUR faith in knowledge of a species that continuously and repeatidly obliterates each other.

PERHAPS me believing in God is not as ignorant as you placing your faith in humanity's intelligence.

FFS see what I'm saying here. You are going off a logic you were taught. JUST like I am going off a logic that I was taught. But I have reasons that PROVE to me PERSONALLY that I am right.

Getting YOU to see those is impossible. Literally impossible.

Once again. Prove god exists, with tangible testable evidence. The burden of proof lies with you. If I claimed dragons exist it would be my job to prove they exist since I'm the one making the wild claim, no one would ask you to prove dragon's don't exist because that's just downright retarded.

I have also stated in this thread that I certainly believe god is a possibility, but going off that so are werewolves, zombies, and unicorns.

Once again "we don't know" is not a viable argument for the existence of god.

And also, this is not logic I was taught. I was raised southern baptist from and arkansas family (my mother side), if I had lived closer to my dad's family, I would probably be raised hardcore catholic. This is logic I worked out on my own after reading how full of shit the bible was and how fucked up the world is.

[Crator]

Why/how would one attempt to prove/disprove something exists without evidence?

[Elude]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

The logic you worked out on your own after reading what other people have written using their logic makes what you believe true? YES. Only because YOU believe it to be true.

As for those who were comparing me to ordinary bible thumpers, I'm not a bible thumper, I believe in Jesus and I believe in God, but I have only read parts of the bible and most of that I don't understand or agree with. Revelations was pretty cool though.

Right and I was never born because any evidence given to me can just as easily be debunked. Not even my own memory if I could possibly remember that far back would be 100 percent factual evidence of my birth.

You know if you're going to use this logic you might as well forget bringing up near death experiences as nothing can be proven with this way of thinking, not even if it's just to convince you and no one else.

How can you back up the bible without having read and understood it all? This would be like defending a criminal with only a fraction of the evidence supplied to you.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

I can't prove God exists. You can't prove he doesn't.

Those aren't equivalent at all, and an absolutely absurd argument. The default position is the negative (i.e. there are no unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, or gods). Whoever makes a positive claim (i.e. something DOES exist) has the burden of proof.

And for the others discussing astronomy questions, I'm happy to try to help answer some. I am a professional astronomer and hold a PhD. It's a truly mind-blowing field for which we still have a lot to learn. It's very humbling to think that we only understand what 4% of the universe is made of. The remaining 96% of the energy/mass is either dark energy or dark matter, which we don't yet know what they are.

[Quovatis]

I work with an infrared satellite telescope. I study a specific type of star called RR Lyrae variables, that pulsate at a constant period. The period they pulsate is directly related to their intrinsic brightness, which allows us to use them as a cosmic distance indicator. I have taught in the past, but not currently.

[Aaron]

Nukem, if you're interested, I'd like to recommend a DVD called "Does God Exist? Building the Scientific Case" by Ph.D Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer is a very respectful man, and presents a most plausible scientific case for God. Honestly, I don't think there is a sound argument against his case as of yet. He's also the author of "Signature in the Cell." If anyone here is interested in a scientific case for God, I'd suggest looking it up!

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Honestly, I don't think there is a sound argument against his case as of yet.

I Googled his name because I don't know who Stephen Meyer is and on his Wikipedia page you can find a number of people who've refuted his "Signature in the Cell" stuff as being factually incorrect. And this is the first few minutes of me having any idea who the guy is.

e: Oh, so the guy is a creationist. I thought you said the guy was going to make a scientific case for god.

Here's a two-hour talk by an actual biologist about why creationism/intelligent design is not scientific:

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

Life didn't happen on accident.

I dunno about that... my life was an accident.

[Quovatis]

I don't know of any creationist astronomers.