It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Smellthecoffee
a reply to: BO XIAN
.....they are as empty sounds dissipated on the wind of scientific knowledge....
....desire of this type of poster is to bring science down....
....Science has crushed superstition.....
....We, as the enlightened ones, should act maturely....
R.I.P. 'God.'
originally posted by: LittleByLittle
originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: defiythelie
Science is only un-provable to those who chose to be willfully ignorant of it's theories and laws or those that feel threatened by its findings.
Show me undeniable proof of Big Bang...
Show me proof that increase in CO2 causes Earth warming...and not the other way around.
And while you do that...dont forget the age old scientific claim...that correlation does not equal causation.
If we go into global warming I have a few questions on water vapor as maybe a part of Global warming. I am neither for or against the theory of AGW. I simply cannot make up my mind.
1 If we are heating the oceans with Fission plants and man maybe chemical waste would not that heating cause more water vapor?
2 Will this access heat disappear after a while or will it be added to other contributes like CO2?
3 If we are creating a water vapor problem why are the Politicians only worried about CO2?
www.nasa.gov...
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut
It's a really simple experiment.
If you don't want to participate, that's fine.
Religion claims that prayer has power to change reality. Need citations?
Per "Jesus Christ"
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
No commentary there about what you (or anyone else) thinks is possible or likely or absurd. The Man said "whatever."
Further, you don't speak for all "reasonable people with religious faith" you can only speak for yourself. Don't spoil the fun for others.
You have not provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. You have provided an anomaly that wasn't investigated scientifically, so you have no idea what "science" would have "said."
EDIT:
Further, from your NYT article:
Still, Dr. Barie suggested that Mr. Moreno had taken the team treating him into largely uncharted medical territory. Dr. Barie said Mr. Moreno’s medical team had had no experience with someone who had fallen so far. He said that falls from even three stories can be fatal if the victim hits his or her head on landing.
“Above 10 stories, most of the time we never see the patients because they usually go to the morgue,” Dr. Barie said, though he added that the staff at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell had treated — and had written a medical journal article about — a patient who survived a 19-story fall, less than half the distance Mr. Moreno fell.
“This is right up there with those anecdotes of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, people whose parachutes don’t open and somehow they manage to survive,” Dr. Barie said in an interview after the press conference. “We’re talking about tiny, tiny percentages, well under 1 percent, of people who fall that distance and survive.”
Nowhere in that article did anyone say "science says the man shouldn't have lived."
Why? Because these doctors are scientists ... they don't deny the reality that is in front of their eyes. The man lived, questions follow: how, why?
Useful knowledge will be gained from this, hopefully.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: WhateverYouSay
you're not getting it. You don't have the ability to think for yourself or think about anything nonparadigmic.. IOW you are stuck in the science because SCIENCE mentality.
You can't measure something for 10 20 or 60 years and assume it has been constant for billions of years...that's BAD science.
radioactive decay rates are reliant on time. I never said that I didn't believe that the TIME that has elapsed has not been the equivalent of 4.5 billion modern years(years being measured by the relatively current amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun). What I said was, the methods that science has used to come to their current conclusions are fundamentally flawed and I pointed out EXACTLY how they're flawed.
The idea that they improve on their mistakes is a fundamental flaw that I likened to the frog not jumping out of a pot of water slowly brought to a boil.
I used geology as a reference because the history of that slow boil is well documented, but it applies to ALL scientific paradigms. It's even worse with more modern ones like AGW because they don't just eliminate outliers, they completely manipulate data to get to their conclusions.
Jaden
originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Indigo5
I think you entirely missed the point of the post you were replying to.
However, you gave a splendid discussion of 'wet birds fly at night.'
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: TzarChasm
That's because you are only criticizing science out of spite. This whole thread is a show of defiance.
"Defiance"?
Look... I don't want to join your church, can you please respect my decision?
I am not criticizing "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (Science), I am criticizing those who tout theory as fact and ostracize and mock anyone who believes otherwise - such behavior is the antithesis to true science, and has been a hindrance to scientific progress.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm not in orbit, I'm on or near the surface of the earth. I should have made that more clear.
There have been no explosions nearby, nor am I (and my pencil) in a falling structure.
Now that absurd conditions have been eliminated that I didn't include in my little experiment because they are nonsensical in the extreme ...
Oh, and by the way, I have not made any claims about science "having all the answers." Please don't put words in my mouth.
Care to participate, now that you "understand" the parameters of the experiment?
You pray that the pencil floats. Let me know when you're ready and I'll drop the pencil.
Why would anyone pray that the pencil floats? Has there been some religious dispensation against gravitation that I am ignorant of? I doubt it. No reasonable person with religious faith would do what you suggest because it is absurd. Nor would it particularly prove anything if some nutcase tried (regardless if they succeeded, or not).
But I have provided a case where science disagrees with the facts. It proves nothing about religious faith but disproves science as a source for all reasonable answers. It is a case that proves faith in science (the OP topic) to be unfounded.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
LOL... First off, I'm not a science denier... farthest from it in fact... Secondly, you stated that theories are proven and you say I DON'T know about science...LOL...
You used an appeal to authority argument on Lucy.."paleontologists KNOW what they're talking about, so I'll defer to them...."
TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF... The conclusions they come to are ASININE when looking at what they're working with.
Same with Gigantopithecus... Please, show me where there is ANYTHING other than molars and a partial jaw bone found of him... I'm all ears...
Lucy has a partial skull and other fragments, yet they claim to know how how the entire skull and brain casing looked... That is FABRICATION... PERIOD...COME ON please start thinking for yourself.
HOW ON EARTH can you logically conclude what the brain casing looked like from the skull fragments that they have???
YOU CANNOT...
PLEASE stop equating the scientific method to the scientific establishment. If science purely followed the scientific method, we wouldn't be having this conversation...
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?
originally posted by: Talorc
. . .
It also disturbs me somewhat because it takes credit away from people, from individuals and humanity as a whole. When you say science invented something, it's somewhat of a disservice to the inventor and to human genius. It's just like Christians claiming that "Christianity feeds the poor, look at all these charities." No, bullsh*t. Compassionate, good-hearted people (who happen to work with churches) feed the poor, not Christianity.