"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Let's say out of 50 million in the last 300 years. The teaching is not for the children and certainly not to teach any to think for themselves. Everything is done for those that control on both sides and their bribers and unions that keep the thieves in office.

Of that can be changed, children could be the best and brightest in all of history, IF, justice for all is truly attained.

One would think the black people would know what tyranny is like and do everything in their power to right the wrongs, but instead, when some blacks came into power, they sold out their brethren for 20 pieces of silver, proving why mankind will never elevate itself even as high as the lowliest creature on earth, bacteria.

The pet whisperer wrote:

Let's say out of 50 million in the last 300 years. The teaching is not for the children and certainly not to teach any to think for themselves. Everything is done for those that control on both sides and their bribers and unions that keep the thieves in office.
Of that can be changed, children could be the best and brightest in all of history, IF, justice for all is truly attained.
One would think the black people would know what tyranny is like and do everything in their power to right the wrongs, but instead, when some blacks came into power, they sold out their brethren for 20 pieces of silver, proving why mankind will never elevate itself even as high as the lowliest creature on earth, bacteria.

Man, you sure are down on humanity. Why is that?

Don't you think we as as humans have advanced very far?

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Man, you sure are down on humanity. Why is that?
Don't you think we as as humans have advanced very far?

He must not be enjoying the indoor plumbing, air conditioning, heating, computers, refrigerators, ovens, lights, televisions, radios, internet, telephones, cameras, mirrors, clean water, safe and abundant food, automobiles, super markets, towels, clothing, cutlery ....

I just can't think of an end to all the great advances we have not made in the last few centuries. We really are behind, we still don't have nanobots.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So in your view the instruments of these two ships show that they can accelerate constantly and they are using the same steady amount of fuel/power?
So anyone can accelerate steadily forever, the acceleration seemingly has no limit?
This is an absolute necessity for your hypothetical scenario to work mathematically.

Your head can accelerate till it pops right off your shoulders , but it wont change the speed of light.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. I anticipated that this was your answer but didn't want to assume. I suppose our understandings are quite similar in many respects. I just use a different model, which is only a transformation from the Einstein model.
With the transformation:
constant speed of light & varying "speed of time"
transformed to:
varying speed of light & constant "speed of time"
all the observations apply as this is a simple transformation within the static spacetime geometry matrix.
So your observations also work for me :)

All kinds of stupid shit works in the twisted minds of insane people.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Man, you sure are down on humanity. Why is that?
Don't you think we as as humans have advanced very far?

Science claims bacteria are smarter than humans. Can you not understand why?

Can any one of you tell the audience here why bacteria are smarter than humans, of course that is according to scientists.?

By the way, I have been claiming bacteria were very smart for over 3 years now.

That is another one of my contributions to science.
I also claimed that bacteria can and will be used to cure many illnesses, if the pharmaceutical co's don't stop it. We all know how that ends.

Now why are humans dumber than the lowest life forms on earth, as claimed by man?

The pet whisperer wrote:

Can any one of you tell the audience here why bacteria are smarter than humans, of course that is according to scientists.?

Scientists have made no such claim. It sounds like nothing more than a bad news article title and you ran with it.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
This problem does not exist. Your model changes time so that speed of light is a constant for all observers. My model changes the speed of light so that time is a constant for all observers.
This is the transformation. There is no problem.
<quoted text>
Time is observed as a constant but accelerated photons make the observers see "squeezed" images of each other. Photons are the medium of observation.

GR has been proven to dilate time with airplanes flying in opposite directions with synchronized watches , the clock flying in counter rotation to Earth's spin
loses time , while the one flying in sync with rotation gains time.
Time dilation due to acceleration is no longer and hasn't been
just theoretical it has been verified for nearly 100 years.
You fail with every step.

The pet whisperer wrote:

Can any one of you tell the audience here why bacteria are smarter than humans, of course that is according to scientists.?

Statistically, you're bringing our species down.

I know.

You can't help it.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> I think it would be interesting to take out all of the horrid parts of Christianity and see what is left. I went through a Bible with a red pen once, and marked with stars the nicer parts (that being less time consuming than marking out the not nice parts), and found a few passages that were relatively decent and harmless. Unfortunately they were too closely connected with bad parts. One disappointing examples is in Matthew,, 34 I think - about doing unto the least of these. some nice ethical precepts about being kind. and then nasty stuff about dividing folks into sheep and goats, and sending goats to hell. It sounds like Jewish excuses for sending scapegoats into the desert to die for their sins. really sick stuff, the abuse of animals in the Bible - literally and figuratively.

Your approach shows one thing - that you have the capacity to evaluate good and evil independently of what the Bible itself says. When the Bible said the Jews were supposed to kill and enslave the Midianites etc, that did not make it GOOD by any standard we can respect.

Looking deeper into why things are good or evil leaves not need for God. As far as I can see, there are two or three contributors to your innate sense of right and wrong.

1. We live in groups, and have agreed to a social contract that makes life more ordered and pleasant than it would otherwise be.

2. We have a well evolved reckoning of who owes us favours and who we owe favours to, who is free-riding and who is being fair. Monkeys and apes living in social groups have been found to have exactly the same capacity - its clearly adaptive and has been inherited.

3. Most of us have a well evolved set of "mirror neurons" that actually switch on a mirror of the emotions we observe in others - yet another trait shared with other primates. That is the source of empathy and empathy is a powerful moral force. Its possible that sociopaths are that way precisely because they lack this capacity, and its a physiological defect.

I would look to these and other natural and rational explanations to understand why you think something is right or wrong. It even helps to explain our moral shortcomings. If there is one thing true about traditional morality, it would appear that humanimals tend to apply moral thinking only within their own group in the first instance. Hence the ancient Jews commandment not to murder mysteriously being suspended when commanded to kill the "outsider" pagans. Even today, people have to be cajoled into thinking of humanity as "one family" in order to overcome their territorial and parochial attitude to outsiders.

Aura Mytha wrote:

GR has been proven to dilate time with airplanes flying in opposite directions with synchronized watches , the clock flying in counter rotation to Earth's spin
loses time , while the one flying in sync with rotation gains time.
Time dilation due to acceleration is no longer and hasn't been
just theoretical it has been verified for nearly 100 years.
You fail with every step.

This works perfectly in the Rotation-model.

Earths rotation is also kinetic energy. One of the planes counters Earth's kinetic energy while the other one adds to it. Thus relative to an no-spatial-kinetic-energy state the other plane as more kinetic energy (and thus less quantum-kinetic-energy). Time is the same for both, but the quantum events occur less often for the plane with greater overall speed in space.

The Rotation-model lives :)

The pet whisperer wrote:

By the way, I have been claiming bacteria were very smart for over 3 years now.
That is another one of my contributions to science.
I also claimed that bacteria can and will be used to cure many illnesses, if the pharmaceutical co's don't stop it. We all know how that ends.
Now why are humans dumber than the lowest life forms on earth, as claimed by man?

You claim to know a lot about science and to have contributed to it.

Care to cire a single scientific paper to prove your scientific prowess to us all?

I thought not.

Now tuck your head between your tail and float away back to your lying cult church where you belong. There's a good theist.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently atheists then no longer seek to know. They require testimonies of evidence so they could believe something. Thus they have faith in some hypothesis built around some evidence. When there are multiple hypotheses, peer pressure then guides the beliefs of a group towards some particular hypothesis.
Because atheists seek to believe hypotheses of evidence, they are just believers like everyone else. They do not seek to know.

Wrong, at the end of the day all atheists ask for is physical evidence. You should expect this, considering that we share a physical world together.

Fact is when theists can't produce any evidence, they try and start to "redefine" atheism to suit the fact that have have NOTHING and are liars.

Atheists are not believers and just because you lost this argument, doesn't mean you can try and redefine what atheism is.

The dishonesty of the zealots, which my favorite christian scientist is appalled at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

-Skeptic- wrote:

Wrong, at the end of the day all atheists ask for is physical evidence. You should expect this, considering that we share a physical world together.
Fact is when theists can't produce any evidence, they try and start to "redefine" atheism to suit the fact that have have NOTHING and are liars.
Atheists are not believers and just because you lost this argument, doesn't mean you can try and redefine what atheism is.

How many of your beliefs are backed with YOUR own observation of the PHYSICAL evidence?
What have you got?

Or perhaps the observations of others have in your mind become observations of your own?

KittenKoder wrote:

The dishonesty of the zealots, which my favorite christian scientist is appalled at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Stein and his ilk are comic sideshow railing against our ever-improving scientific understanding of how things actually work.

They will be forgotten.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You claim to know a lot about science and to have contributed to it.
Care to cire a single scientific paper to prove your scientific prowess to us all?
I thought not.
Now tuck your head between your tail and float away back to your lying cult church where you belong. There's a good theist.

Perhaps you are unaware of the PW's earth shattering scientific research in animal psychology. You should ask him about it.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
How many of your beliefs are backed with YOUR own observation of the PHYSICAL evidence?
What have you got?
Or perhaps the observations of others have in your mind become observations of your own?

Like I said before, you have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs.

So instead of trying to redefine atheism, how about coming up with the goods like an honest and decent person?