|
FORUMS > The Sin Bin > Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 37704 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
2051.jpg The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan:2051.jpg |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "
I've never heard of anyone mention Finn the Giant before.'"
The clue is in the name
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "There are two main groups making claims about the Causeway's formation - the scientists and YECs. The YEC are much, much smaller in number but it is still an opinion which holds some sway in NI.
.'"
Hi, o man who ignores all questions.
There are not two main groups. There is science, which is the only one of any relevance to the issue, and tells us the facts of the formation of the site. It is not an "opinion".
A few YCs are not in any sense a "main group", but a collection of misguided people who base bat loony views on literally no evidence at all, and are happy to ignore the incontrovertible evidence of, say, carbon dating, or the fossil record. It is only they who "make claims", which is all they can do, as they have zero evidence to support their entirely faith-based opinion.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1318 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2014 | Mar 2013 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
41569_1357151836.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_41569.jpg |
|
| Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Hi, o man who ignores all questions.'"
Says the man who went cowering last time. You can still find my challenge in the thread that got closed. Feel free to PM me your response.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There are not two main groups. There is science, which is the only one of any relevance to the issue, and tells us the facts of the formation of the site. It is not an "opinion". '"
Of course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed. Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things. This is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.
Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "A few YCs are not in any sense a "main group", but a collection of misguided people who base bat loony views on literally no evidence at all, and are happy to ignore the incontrovertible evidence of, say, carbon dating, or the fossil record. '"
Over 40% of the US population believes that God created the Heavens and the Earth. YECs are by no means a fringe group.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 37503 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2015 | Oct 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "Over 40% of the US population believes that God created the Heavens and the Earth. YECs are by no means a fringe group.'"
over 60% of the US population don't have a passport and couldn't identify Iraq on a map, maybe you should move over there and spread your hate filled poison.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 2748 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jul 2017 | Feb 2013 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
11327.jpg "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" Carl Sagan:11327.jpg |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "Of course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed.
Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things.'"
You are merely demonstrating your ignorance of science.
Scientists look at the evidence and form hypotheses based on this evidence they then test this evidence
and formulate theories which provide an explanatory framework to for data.
If a theory or hypothesis is falsified scientists discard the exsting theory and formulate new hypotheses which are consistent with the data and proceed to test these new hypotheses. This allows scientists to discard bad ideas such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old which was falsified by geologists towards the end of the 18th century.
It is the scientific method which has allowed our species to travel into space, to cure numerous deadly diseased and come up with important inventions such as the computer.
The reason why science employs methodological naturalism is because applying the supernatural to explain natural natural phenomena does nothing to enhance our understanding of such phenomena as such claims are in themselves unfalsifiable and cannot be tested and where they can be tested they have been falsified.
Creationists on the other hand begin with the apriori view that their religious doctrine is true and then proceed to reject all evidence which contradicts their position. This can be seen in the statements of faith that creationists organisations usually require of their members and also in the fact that the "work" of so called creation scientists consists of little more than logical fallacies, misrepresentations of the scientific data and outright falsehoods.
In essence most creationists hold the view that when reality and doctrine differ reality is wrong and doctrine is correct.
Quote: kirkstaller "This is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.'"
The reason is that one side has a sound methodology that works and has improved our standard of living significantly and the "other side" rejects any evidence which doesn't confrom to their particular ancient mythology and has a dogmatic belief in the "truth" of this particular mythology.
Quote: kirkstaller "Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.'" '" ]'"]
The fact that scientific findings are always open to revision is one of its biggest strengths. As mentioned above it is this that allows scientists to discard bad ideas that are unable to explain the scientific data such as those of creationists.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "Says the man who went cowering last time. '"
You can stop your absurd rhetorical bull. You haven't, and won't, answer any questions. That's a fact.
Quote: kirkstaller "Of course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed. Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things. This is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.'"
Tosh. Scientists look at data scientifically. That would of course include, if there were any evidence of a god or gods, god. They do not remove god. There is no evidence of god.
You correctly identify the belief in god as "baggage" and again correctly realise that this baggage hinders any rational examination of evidence, as the result has to include a god, and that obviously pre-excludes any explanation that excludes god. In other words, if the truth does not include god, then they could never reach it.
Quote: kirkstaller "Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? '"
I don't know. I can't think of a single example. perhaps you could post some links to this bizarre claim?
Quote: kirkstaller "Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. '"
Nice straw man, but I have not done so.
If you don't even understand what a theory is, and conflate theory with fact, then what hope is there for debating in English? A grasp on language of at least that level is a prerequisite.
In the context of what we are talking about, a fact is something we observe in the world. A theory is our best explanation for it. For example, things fall. The theory of gravity explains it. Newton first outlined the theory, Einstein much improved and expanded the theory, scientists have done gazillions of experiments, tests and refinements, and the theory of gravity remains very much under research and development. There's a lot we now know, and a lot that we don't. But the fact that we do not have a 100% complete theory doesn't affect the fact that gravity exists and it doesn't affect the fact that it makes things fall.
The present state of the theory as to how the Giant's Causeway was actually constructed, which is the product of huge amounts of diligent and peer reviewed scientific research, tests and analysis, is what I would call a scientific theory.
It is not to be confused (but you do confuse it) with somebody saying "Yes, but I think it was formed in Noah's flood", because that is only a theory about as much as someone else saying "I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". In other words, not a theory at all, but an irrational belief.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 8893 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Apr 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
25511_1478008518.jpg "Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions":d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_25511.jpg |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "Of course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed. Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things. This is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.
Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.
'"
Many scientists hold deep spiritual and religious beliefs, it has nothing to do with how they interpret the natural world around them. Just saying God made everything, just as it is, is plainly rediculous.
If God made everything then he made the tide flow and he made rocks break when waves hit them. He must also have made the elements and be responsible for how they interact with each other. Unless God sits there and direct every wave and moves every grain of sand in the wind personally then blindly trotting out explanations for rock formations that are along the lines of "God created them just the way they are" without trying to understand the physical mechanism involved is so stupid not even God would be able to find a way of measuring it.
And what is this "Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change" bullS4h!t? What's a scientific fact and what's a fact? Give me a fact then.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 11924 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
30596_1286642206.jpg If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
Frederick Douglas:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_30596.jpg |
|
| kirkstaller is a massive gormclops. FACT!
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 36786 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2003 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | May 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
6505_1460484023.jpg [i:10za56ci]Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm
It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One[/i:10za56ci]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_6505.jpg |
Moderator
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "Of course it is an opinion.'"
No, it isn't. I'm beginning to realise that you don't actually know what these words you keep using mean.
Quote: kirkstaller "Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed.'"
They interpret empirical evidence according to proven scientific principles. They don't [iremove[/i God - he simply isn't required. Plus you conveniently ignore the large number of scientists who are people of faith.
Quote: kirkstaller "Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.'"
You recently claimed to understand science. This paragraph alone demonstrates how very far from understanding science you actually are. It is so wrong on so many levels that I literally do not know where to start. You are quite staggeringly ignorant about science and about the way the world works.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 8893 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Apr 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
25511_1478008518.jpg "Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions":d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_25511.jpg |
|
| I want to hear one of these "Fact" facts.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| Quote: DHM "I want to hear one of these "Fact" facts.'"
You are doomed to burn in the fires of Hell. FACT.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 8893 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Apr 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
25511_1478008518.jpg "Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions":d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_25511.jpg |
|
|
Just to show I'm no scientific evangelist...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3509a.html
I've read a few articles recently on things like this. Most biological academic research cannot be reproduced in commercial labs and the industry is getting pretty worried by the garbage being churned out. The feeling is that academic research is now motivated too much by money, to the point where contradictory results are shelved or ignored, only "impact" results are published and peer review is now innefective. Scientists are people and too many labs are out to make a name for themselves or sell what they do to business for big returns.
Read the comments to that article - some solid opinions.
I've nearly 25 years in the industry at many levels and I have never had that much faith in peer review. I'm not the only one either. I read a paper by one of our customers that was so awful it wouldn't have managed a pass at GCSE, yet it got published. They made so many mistakes in the method that the results were utterly meaningless. When you then add a set of truly colossal egos, a back scratching culture that would make the Mason's look open and big grants, that's what happens with human beings.
Good science is about being sceptical and dilligently reproducing your results and evidence again and again. There is a saying that you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it with 100% certainty. Scepticism and evidence are the last thing on the minds of the religious, these are two concepts beyond their understanding. Faith is all they need.
|
|
Just to show I'm no scientific evangelist...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3509a.html
I've read a few articles recently on things like this. Most biological academic research cannot be reproduced in commercial labs and the industry is getting pretty worried by the garbage being churned out. The feeling is that academic research is now motivated too much by money, to the point where contradictory results are shelved or ignored, only "impact" results are published and peer review is now innefective. Scientists are people and too many labs are out to make a name for themselves or sell what they do to business for big returns.
Read the comments to that article - some solid opinions.
I've nearly 25 years in the industry at many levels and I have never had that much faith in peer review. I'm not the only one either. I read a paper by one of our customers that was so awful it wouldn't have managed a pass at GCSE, yet it got published. They made so many mistakes in the method that the results were utterly meaningless. When you then add a set of truly colossal egos, a back scratching culture that would make the Mason's look open and big grants, that's what happens with human beings.
Good science is about being sceptical and dilligently reproducing your results and evidence again and again. There is a saying that you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it with 100% certainty. Scepticism and evidence are the last thing on the minds of the religious, these are two concepts beyond their understanding. Faith is all they need.
|
|
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1318 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2014 | Mar 2013 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
41569_1357151836.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_41569.jpg |
|
| Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You can stop your absurd rhetorical bull. You haven't, and won't, answer any questions. That's a fact.'"
Perhaps you could repeat here then. Let's get this sorted once and for all. You can, of course, choose not to.
Tosh. Scientists look at data scientifically. That would of course include, if there were any evidence of a god or gods, god. They do not remove god. There is no evidence of god.
Scientists come with baggage - their rejection of almighty God.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You correctly identify the belief in god as "baggage" and again correctly realise that this baggage hinders any rational examination of evidence, as the result has to include a god, and that obviously pre-excludes any explanation that excludes god. In other words, if the truth does not include god, then they could never reach it.'"
I admit it is baggage. We all look at the evidence with our own biases. Mine just happens to be right.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I don't know. I can't think of a single example. perhaps you could post some links to this bizarre claim?'"
The hopping around of the age of the Earth?
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Nice straw man, but I have not done so.
'"
I didn't say that you had, I was pre-empting your response. That is not a straw man.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1318 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2014 | Mar 2013 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
41569_1357151836.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_41569.jpg |
|
| Quote: Gareth1984 "[iopinion/waffle[/i'"
Meh, all opinion.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 37503 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2015 | Oct 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: kirkstaller "I admit it is baggage. We all look at the evidence with our own biases. Mine just happens to be right.'"
brainwashed
| | |
| |
|
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
2.7431640625:5
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.64M | 2,703 | 80,133 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wigan |
28 |
759 |
336 |
423 |
46 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Hull KR |
28 |
729 |
335 |
394 |
44 |
Warrington |
29 |
769 |
351 |
418 |
42 |
Leigh |
29 |
580 |
442 |
138 |
33 |
Salford |
28 |
556 |
561 |
-5 |
32 |
St.Helens |
28 |
618 |
411 |
207 |
30 |
|
Catalans |
27 |
475 |
427 |
48 |
30 |
Leeds |
27 |
530 |
488 |
42 |
28 |
Huddersfield |
27 |
468 |
658 |
-190 |
20 |
Castleford |
27 |
425 |
735 |
-310 |
15 |
Hull FC |
27 |
328 |
894 |
-566 |
6 |
LondonB |
27 |
317 |
916 |
-599 |
6 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
26 |
1010 |
262 |
748 |
50 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Bradford |
27 |
703 |
399 |
304 |
36 |
Toulouse |
25 |
744 |
368 |
376 |
35 |
York |
28 |
682 |
479 |
203 |
32 |
Widnes |
27 |
561 |
502 |
59 |
29 |
Featherstone |
27 |
634 |
525 |
109 |
28 |
|
Sheffield |
26 |
626 |
526 |
100 |
28 |
Doncaster |
26 |
498 |
619 |
-121 |
25 |
Halifax |
26 |
509 |
650 |
-141 |
22 |
Batley |
26 |
422 |
591 |
-169 |
22 |
Barrow |
25 |
442 |
720 |
-278 |
19 |
Swinton |
27 |
474 |
670 |
-196 |
18 |
Whitehaven |
25 |
437 |
826 |
-389 |
18 |
Dewsbury |
27 |
348 |
879 |
-531 |
4 |
Hunslet |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|