Pseudoscience

Stardestroyer.net ^ | 2000.11.18 | Michael Wong

[Junior]

An oldy but a goody. Ping.

[stanz]

A very "scientific" debunking of creation "science." Another contribution to my collection. Thanks

[balrog666]

The classics never go out of style!

[Condorman]

A fun read...

[vannrox]

Dr. Hawaiss(SP) of Egypt was inspired to study the past because of the writings of Cayce! I ,myself, was inspired to study Aerospace Engineering due to the likes of Star Trek and 2001. Inspiration pays an important role in the future of our youth.

[f.Christian]

Junk/HACK 'science'!

Trying to orbit science around darwin...

is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon---

HACKWARDS!

Darwin is an assteroid----klunker....

no fuel---lotta assh/slag!

Halebopps---cargo cults...govt work/well-fare!

Ape ancestry science rejectionist---me!

[End The Hypocrisy]

Few people realize yet just how responsible bureaucratic NASA is for keeping science fiction from becoming science fact (despite its' $15.3 billion dollar annual budget). It's documented daily at the following conservative watchdog website:

http://www.NASAWatch.INFO

[VadeRetro]

In the John Travolta/Robert Duvall legal drama "A Civil Action", the Duvall character advises his law students on how to react to the appearance of new evidence. He explains that before they even know what it is, they should instinctively leap to their feet shouting "objection!". So it is with pseudoscientists, because their relationship with mainstream science is not co-operative; it's adversarial, like a legal trial.

Much is explained here.

[gcruse]

If kids are getting more science from ST than from school, it is more likely the school's fault for making the subject terminally boring. I like Star Trek. Bite me.

[VadeRetro]

... it's a bit like saying you have doubts about the accuracy of a thermometer that reads 25°C, so the temperature must be -80°C.

Very nice!

[f.Christian]

Spontaneous life/matter and animal morphing is mainstream science?

[billybudd]

I've been in countless evolution/creationism debates, which never produce anything of value. Why? Because the creationist assumes his position as true and undeniable, so discussion is pointless. Whatever arguments you may offer about physics, biology, etc., they won't work, so don't bother. The argument will always come back to "Well, God doesn't have to obey the laws of physics." Well, ok, so then why do you need to provide a physical explanation of creation at all? Why does the Bible say creation happened in this way and not in that way? Even the creation story in Genesis is a primitive description of a physical process.
Whenever you point out a piece of evidence, such as the fossil record, they will say "Well, how do you know this is true?" (and attempt to "debunk" everything). Ok, so let's hold the Bible to the same standard. How do you know the story in the Bible is true? Of course, the answer is obvious: because the Bible is true, duh. And there you have it.

[f.Christian]

To: Tribune7

Many posters, even many on this site, have vehmently expressed the view that Christianity held back the advancement of human progress,

The charge that Christianity has held back scientific progress is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps the best example of pagan materialistm is atomism. The fortuitous and mindless joining of atoms holds absolutely no prospects for scientific inquiry and neither does the fortuitous and mindless mutations held by present day materialists.

Only theories which deny mindlessness and propose order can be the source of scientific inquiry. It is this belief in order, in natural laws which as stated in our Declaration come from God that has proven to be the source of the scientific spirit and scientific progress in the Christian West.

12 posted on 9/15/02 6:07 AM Pacific by gore3000

[Long Cut]

I have to agree with you, Sir. If I'm debating someone, on ANY topic, and they interject God or the Bible as proof or evidence or as arguments; indeed if ANY religion comes up, I must end the debate. At that point, Faith and not Facts are being discussed, and Faith by its very nature is unprovable one way or another.

It scarecely matters what my OWN beliefs are. Once religion is used to debate fact, law, OR science, we have entered a theological, not scientific, discussion, and I am unwilling to be swerved like that.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ

[Long Cut]

Of course, some people do not like to debate science at all, and prefer Faith, which I suppose is easier to do if you're absolutely convinced that yours is the true one.

However, some would countenance no debate at all. Witness the bizarre attempts to spam THIS thread with gibberish. Unfortunately, the individual doing so does his own cause little good, and his credibility even less.

[billybudd]

I have no idea what you're saying. But let me take a stab at it anyway. You complain that evolutionary theory, and modern cosmology, could not possibly be true because the complexity of our environment couldn't have been caused at random. First of all, this has nothing to do with creationism, but sounds more like an argument used by proponents of "intelligent design", which is essentially Evolution-Plus (evolution guided by God). And actually, "intelligent design" is not a theory at all because it cannot be distinguished from evolutionary theory. The whole point of a random event is that we do not know what caused it. That's the definition of randomness - lack of knowledge. So if you want to say mutations happen because God wills them, ok, go for it. It doesn't change anything about explaining the mechanics of evolution, so it is really irrelevant to the science to say "God causes mutations".

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age

[RightWhale]

"Well, how do you know this is true?"

If the alleged scientist can simply glance at a vector in 3-space and say if it describes a potential field, I might listen further.