Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

cbus4life wrote: Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

^^^This.

And yet, half the toolbags on here insist on trying to call him out, as if he has no idea WTF he's talking about. Good stuff!

BCSbunk wrote:

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena and no one has observed or experimented on a god. In fact you cannot even tell me what one is so please stop with non-cognitive superfluous drivel.

Also I find your lack of logic disturbing. I have never claimed to be an authority on what is science but you might try looking it up sometime.

I didn't ever say there was an experment/observation one could make on God, but there have been plenty of experiments/observations with regards to other aspects of "creation" such as age of Earth, plate tectonics, biology, geology, etc.

Just like the atheist scientist can not do any observation/experiment on the molecules to single cell animal belief how the Big Bang really came from "nothing", a Christian scientist can not do any observations/experiments on God.

The "beginnings" of either side of the coin can not be experimented/observed, whether its how the Big Bang happened or how God created the universe. Neither can be scientifically dealt with, period.

To be quite honest, abiogenesis (beginning of the first life on Earth), the ideas behing the Big Bang, and creation should all be in philosophy classes and not science classes as none of them can be experimented or observed.

How are we supposed to drag this out with that thorough of an answer?

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena and no one has observed or experimented on a god. In fact you cannot even tell me what one is so please stop with non-cognitive superfluous drivel.

Also I find your lack of logic disturbing. I have never claimed to be an authority on what is science but you might try looking it up sometime.

I didn't ever say there was an experment/observation one could make on God, but there have been plenty of experiments/observations with regards to other aspects of "creation" such as age of Earth, plate tectonics, biology, geology, etc.

Just like the atheist scientist can not do any observation/experiment on the molecules to single cell animal belief how the Big Bang really came from "nothing", a Christian scientist can not do any observations/experiments on God.

The "beginnings" of either side of the coin can not be experimented/observed, whether its how the Big Bang happened or how God created the universe. Neither can be scientifically dealt with, period.

To be quite honest, abiogenesis (beginning of the first life on Earth), the ideas behing the Big Bang, and creation should all be in philosophy classes and not science classes as none of them can be experimented or observed.

Didn't they just do an experiment where they showed that life could come out of a "primordial soup"-esque environment? Someone on one of the forums here linked it.

The ideas behind the Big Bang, beginning of life on earth, etc aren't philosophical topics though. They are things where you can debate whether it is likely or scientifically possible that they happened. Whether or not a deity of some sort created earth/how they did does belong in a philosophy type course though.

I don't know. I guess when somebody can scientifically prove that God (or insert whatever name you like to use) didn't create life, I'll agree that it cannot be possible.
Until then, I wouldn't mind if creation science was offered up as an elected, no different than any home ec class or shop.

I Wear Pants wrote:
Didn't they just do an experiment where they showed that life could come out of a "primordial soup"-esque environment? Someone on one of the forums here linked it.

The ideas behind the Big Bang, beginning of life on earth, etc aren't philosophical topics though. They are things where you can debate whether it is likely or scientifically possible that they happened. Whether or not a deity of some sort created earth/how they did does belong in a philosophy type course though.

1. No they haven't, to my knowledge they have tried for decades and still fail to show how life (single cell) can come from proteins/amino acids.

2. Abiogenesis, look it up, is most definitely a philosophical discussion. Look at some of the "beliefs" on how the first cell came about. Would there be some biological discussions in it as well? Sure, but as soon as you talk about how that first cell came about, its a "belief", not a scientific theory. Since the fact that some form of alien implantation (intelligent or metoric) is now a common belief as to how the first cell came about, its most definitely philosophical.

3. The ideas about how the Big Bang happened from "nothing" are also most definitely philosophical in nature. Sure, some scientific discussions/ideas will be discussed, but similar scientific discussions can be had about creation.

Good work, jmog. THe probablility of even the right amino acids coming together to form one single protein molecule (let alone several proteins required for one freaking cell) is staggering.

A recommended read on this subject is Michael Denton's book- Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , where he basically rips Darwinian evolution to shreds.

And jmog is right, any theory on the origin of life can't be subjected to scientific theory or observation (evolution, creation, etc.). So as far as schools are concerned, why can't they teach what the competing theories are (with facts, evidence, and arguments on both sides) and let students make up their minds? That's not promoting religion, and Congress didn't make any law requiring anyone to worship anything.

As it stands now, schools are promoting a religion- it's called Darwinian humanistic atheism. If evolution is the end all be all, it should be able to stand on its own against competing theories like creationism. But it's not- so we have to ban all competing theories.

Good for Kasich.

(Postscript- what does this argument have to do with the thread?:huh

Yea back to Kasich and move the other discussion to the evolution/ creation in class thread created some time ago.

cbus4life wrote: Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

I don't mean to seem like a douche when I say this, and no disrespect to Jmog...but he's not a "scientist" who works on discovering fundamental principles, but an engineer who applies those principles. To me, that'd be like calling myself a judge instead of an attorney. Engineers apply principles drawn from science just like I apply statutory or common law rules created by common law judges or legislators. Surely you wouldn't give deference towards my opinion on what constitutes great legislation just because I'm in the business of applying legislation to particular facts and circumstances. Why would you give deference to the opinion of an engineer on what constitutes good science merely because she's in the business of applying scientific principles?

Maybe I'm just being an annoying douche, but to me, there's a difference.

BoatShoes wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

I don't mean to seem like a douche when I say this, and no disrespect to Jmog...but he's not a "scientist" who works on discovering fundamental principles, but an engineer who applies those principles. To me, that'd be like calling myself a judge instead of an attorney. Engineers apply principles drawn from science just like I apply statutory or common law rules created by common law judges or legislators. Surely you wouldn't give deference towards my opinion on what constitutes great legislation just because I'm in the business of applying legislation to particular facts and circumstances. Why would you give deference to the opinion of an engineer on what constitutes good science merely because she's in the business of applying scientific principles?

Maybe I'm just being an annoying douche, but to me, there's a difference.

No offense taken, and I hope I don't sound like a "douche" either.

Am I a PhD physicist? Nope.

I do have a BS in Chemical Engineering, a BS in Applied Mathematics with minors in both chemistry and physics (not quite the PhD). I also have a MS in Chemical Engineering.

I have published research papers that delve into the nanoscale physics world of theoretical physics at that level (aka making microscopic computer chips).

I do have a published paper in aerodynamics.

I do have a published paper in the fundamental physics/chemistry of solidification (the freezing of liquid materials).

Am I a PhD astrophysicist? Nope, but I have taken many of those classes.
Am I a PhD biochemist? Nope, but I have taken many of those classes.

Am I the average BS engineer designing bridges or sizing pumps? Nope (sorry, that one does sound douche baggery).

So, would I take the word of a lawyer concerning laws over a layman like myself (with regards to common law) even though said lawyer might not know as much as say a judge? Yup...

Just like I would take the thoughts of a "lowly engineer" like myself over a layman like BCSBunk when it comes to scientific ideas. Just like the "lawyer", there are definitely smarter people out there than myself in these areas, but I'm also not coming from a place of zero knowledge as I've actually studied these things on my own time for nearly a decade now.

BoatShoes wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

I don't mean to seem like a douche when I say this, and no disrespect to Jmog...but he's not a "scientist" who works on discovering fundamental principles, but an engineer who applies those principles. To me, that'd be like calling myself a judge instead of an attorney. Engineers apply principles drawn from science just like I apply statutory or common law rules created by common law judges or legislators. Surely you wouldn't give deference towards my opinion on what constitutes great legislation just because I'm in the business of applying legislation to particular facts and circumstances. Why would you give deference to the opinion of an engineer on what constitutes good science merely because she's in the business of applying scientific principles?

Maybe I'm just being an annoying douche, but to me, there's a difference.

No, i understand completely what you're saying, and knew of Jmogs background (which he just explained in post above mine, and has explained before i think), hence my comment.

jmog wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:

cbus4life wrote: Considering jmog is an actual scientist, i love reading his opinions on these issues.

I don't mean to seem like a douche when I say this, and no disrespect to Jmog...but he's not a "scientist" who works on discovering fundamental principles, but an engineer who applies those principles. To me, that'd be like calling myself a judge instead of an attorney. Engineers apply principles drawn from science just like I apply statutory or common law rules created by common law judges or legislators. Surely you wouldn't give deference towards my opinion on what constitutes great legislation just because I'm in the business of applying legislation to particular facts and circumstances. Why would you give deference to the opinion of an engineer on what constitutes good science merely because she's in the business of applying scientific principles?

Maybe I'm just being an annoying douche, but to me, there's a difference.

No offense taken, and I hope I don't sound like a "douche" either.

Am I a PhD physicist? Nope.

I do have a BS in Chemical Engineering, a BS in Applied Mathematics with minors in both chemistry and physics (not quite the PhD). I also have a MS in Chemical Engineering.

I have published research papers that delve into the nanoscale physics world of theoretical physics at that level (aka making microscopic computer chips).

I do have a published paper in aerodynamics.

I do have a published paper in the fundamental physics/chemistry of solidification (the freezing of liquid materials).

Am I a PhD astrophysicist? Nope, but I have taken many of those classes.
Am I a PhD biochemist? Nope, but I have taken many of those classes.

Am I the average BS engineer designing bridges or sizing pumps? Nope (sorry, that one does sound douche baggery).

So, would I take the word of a lawyer concerning laws over a layman like myself (with regards to common law) even though said lawyer might not know as much as say a judge? Yup...

Just like I would take the thoughts of a "lowly engineer" like myself over a layman like BCSBunk when it comes to scientific ideas. Just like the "lawyer", there are definitely smarter people out there than myself in these areas, but I'm also not coming from a place of zero knowledge as I've actually studied these things on my own time for nearly a decade now.

Damn, dude! I thought the letter I got into Penthouse was cool....thanks for ruining my day.

Gov. Christie continues to diplay a solid pair of balls. Swiftly vetoes millionair tax package. Get this guy a beer!

"While I have little doubt that the sponsors and supporters of this bill sincerely believe that the state can tax its way out of this financial crisis, I believe that this bill does nothing more than repeat the failed, irresponsible and unsustainable fiscal policies of the past," wrote Christie in his veto statement. "Now is not the time for more of the same. Ultimately, another tax increase will punish the state’s struggling small businesses and set our economy further back from recovery."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/nj_gov_christie_vetoes_million.html

majorspark wrote: Gov. Christie continues to diplay a solid pair of balls. Swiftly vetoes millionair tax package. Get this guy a beer!

"While I have little doubt that the sponsors and supporters of this bill sincerely believe that the state can tax its way out of this financial crisis, I believe that this bill does nothing more than repeat the failed, irresponsible and unsustainable fiscal policies of the past," wrote Christie in his veto statement. "Now is not the time for more of the same. Ultimately, another tax increase will punish the state’s struggling small businesses and set our economy further back from recovery."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/nj_gov_christie_vetoes_million.html

Can we clone him ??!!!!