Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Referees    Browns

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2008, 03:47 PM   #1
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 38,014
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 1,435
Thanked 6,070 Times in 2,612 Posts
Default Sciencedebate 2008

very interesting site i found in a news article on yahoo that stated either obama or mccain will be much more science friendly than the current administration. see each candidates responses to 14 scientific field related questions and topics. very interresting and informative.
Quote:
"For the last 60 years, science and engineering have been responsible for half the growth in the U.S. economy. But some reports suggest that by 2010 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Asian countries are now graduating 10 times the number of scientists and engineers the U.S. is. Do the candidates have a plan to keep the American economy strong and to tackle America's major challenges like climate change, energy security, education and healthcare - all of which revolve around science? Who really deserves your vote?"

-Shawn Lawrence Otto
CEO, Science Debate 2008
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id42
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 05:29 PM   #2
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Both Kennedy and Eisenhower made a direct plea to the American people and the educational system to add more science to the school curriculum. That dedication to science had a direct impact on the US leading the way for a generation.

Science has been marginalized by several factors that I won't get into, but we desperately need to add a TON of emphasis to math and science in this country if we want to stay even competitive, let alone lead the World in innovation.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 05:51 PM   #3
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 6,986
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 490
Thanked 3,956 Times in 2,034 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

We can't have science here. First of all that carbon dating of the bones found in rocks is garbage. Then all the melting ice theories pop up. No, scientists aren't worth their weight in Alaskan crude.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 06:08 PM   #4
Preacher
Living Legend
 

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,890
Member Number: 16327
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
We can't have science here. First of all that carbon dating of the bones found in rocks is garbage. Then all the melting ice theories pop up. No, scientists aren't worth their weight in Alaskan crude.
You are very arrogant.

The problem most Christians have with science is not the science itself, but the philosophical arguments used to tie scientific observations together.

Since when did it become unscientific to question findings? Seems to me that a certain dogma of scientific religion has replaced a dogma of christian religion, and anyone who questions that new dogma faces a new inquisition of ridicule.

Quite open-minded and unbiased, don't you think?
Preacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 06:10 PM   #5
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
We can't have science here. First of all that carbon dating of the bones found in rocks is garbage. Then all the melting ice theories pop up. No, scientists aren't worth their weight in Alaskan crude.
With you on carbon dating....but you seem to be insinuating that some other Country has some secret new replacement for petroleum that we missed out on.

And I'm definitely not ready to say that humans are 100% responsible for global warming, and would consider any scientist who ignores natural heating/cooling trends of the planet as a hack.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 06:20 PM   #6
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 6,986
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 490
Thanked 3,956 Times in 2,034 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

just a Palin, Alaska joke.

Humans aren't 100% responsible but we can only control our portion, not the natural trends.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 06:35 PM   #7
Preacher
Living Legend
 

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,890
Member Number: 16327
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Vis..

I came back to change my opening line on my post.

I don't want to cast you as an arrogant man. I do not know you and apologize. I do however, feel that it is an arrogant statement. I hope you know what I mean by the difference.

And BTW,

I, and millions of other people in this country, agree with Sarah Palin.

Carbon dating, amongst everything else, is based on human understanding of how events and processes happen. Like I have said. It isn't the observation I disagree with, it is the rationale of the observation and the fact that the resulting conclusions from the observation have an innate bias that all things observed today has acted in the same manner throughout the age of the world.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a meteor hit the earth. The atmospheric change would most definitely affect what radiation from the sun hits the earth. Would that affect carbon dating? Speed it up? Slow it down? What if there was multiple meteors? What other catastrophic atmospheric changes could affect not just carbon dating, but many aspects of science as we project back?

See, my problem is the assumptions made. Assumptions based on philosophical arguments derived from scientific observations.
Preacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 07:00 PM   #8
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

What about redshift? Even if we throw out carbon dating (and I won't, because it's accepted scientific fact, but for the sake of argument) there are still many indisputable facts that show a Universe, and, by association, a planet Earth, that's much older than 4,000-6,000 years old.


This is Occam's Razor. Religion has only recently attempted to bend facts and omit inconvenient truths to try and re-establish a completely literal interpretation of the bible. You can't start with conclusions and work backwards, and it's even worse that the conclusions are based on dogma, especially dogma which has itself changed and shifted over long periods of time. This whole fundamentalist shift to literally interpret the bible really just started back up about 30 years ago. Science and religion had found a way to reconcile prior to that...
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 07:04 PM   #9
Preacher
Living Legend
 

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,890
Member Number: 16327
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by revefsreleets View Post
What about redshift? Even if we throw out carbon dating (and I won't, because it's accepted scientific fact, but for the sake of argument) there are still many indisputable facts that show a Universe, and, by association, a planet Earth, that's much older than 4,000-6,000 years old.


This is Occam's Razor. Religion has only recently attempted to bend facts and omit inconvenient truths to try and re-establish a completely literal interpretation of the bible. You can't start with conclusions and work backwards, and it's even worse than the conclusions are based on dogma, especially dogma which has itself changed and shifted over long periods of time.
Which is exactly my assessment of modern science. It no longer allows for basic questions concerning evolution or method. It is the only science, that is, scientia that no longer assesses its basic methods.

History does,
social sciences do,
theology does.

And yes, theology is classically still considered a science, which is why it is possible to get a Bachelor of science degree in the field of theology.

Rev., my main contention is that it is beyond science to proclaim absolutes beyond what it can currently (that is, this age) see, hear, smell, touch, or taste.

In other words, science can claim that by observation a rock dates 20000000 years old, but that only means that it dates that old as long as the process which is counted on is consistently valid at its current value. The same is true of ALL scientific observation. Thus, projecting back millions of years becomes just that, projection (learned projection), but far from absolute.

In a fit of Irony, the call of science is what bends around to bite science in the rear-end. You can only know what is observable... and because you cannot observe how evolution has happened, cannot observe how decay or other things happened millions of years ago, it cannot be known with certitude. Only with educated possibility.
Preacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2008, 07:12 PM   #10
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Sciencedebate 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
Which is exactly my assessment of modern science. It no longer allows for basic questions concerning evolution or method. It is the only science, that is, scientia that no longer assesses its basic methods.

History does,
social sciences do,
theology does.

And yes, theology is classically still considered a science, which is why it is possible to get a Bachelor of science degree in the field of theology.
Evolution is ever changing. There are new developments all the time. When we see sexual maturity in a species evolve from a few years to less than one in just a generation or two, it forces scientists to revisit the whole "theory" again. AND evolution worked forwards, not backwards. Darwin wasn't trying to find data to fit his conclusions, his conclusions were derived from observed data. Creationism accepts facts that fit it's preconceived conclusion, and ignores or dismisses the facts that don't fit. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was arrived at after all other possibilities were exhausted.

Fundamentalism is a regenerated idea. Literal translation worked until it didn't, and enlightenment had it's day, and relatively recently this movement reared it's ugly head again in a direct confrontation with "Science as devil".
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts