Of Course Another Thought

[florduh]

That doesn't address anything, and in many ways is fallacious.

I'm thinking of making that my signature line, BJ. It is succinct and can be used damn near every time one of them says anything.

[Ouroboros]

Academic Science had the preeminent position of honor both in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Union. Much more so than in USA of that time ( hey, we were Jesus folks back then... )

Source?

[BrotherJosh]

That doesn't address anything, and in many ways is fallacious.

I'm thinking of making that my signature line, BJ. It is succinct and can be used damn near every time one of them says anything.

 

Thanks

[♦ ficino ♦]

The effort gained a real political support during 20th century resulting in two grand scientific experiments called Communism ( Marxian dialectical materialism ) and Nazism ( a society of Master race thru scientific eugenics ). The innocent victims from these two scientific applications to human society number in the hundreds of millions.

 

Communism and Nazism are both scientific? Are you that ignorant? Aside from the fact that both are political, economical and philosophical ideologies, you realize that Christianity fostered and lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions, as well? The problem with all three is that they are ideologies that people cling to, the common link is that of religious zealotry.

 

Academic Science had the preeminent position of honor both in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Union. Much more so than in USA of that time ( hey, we were Jesus folks back then... )

 

I believe you are wrong for both, Jay. Althought they claimed that socialism is scientific, Soviet science was subject to Stalin's ideological preferences. Albert Speer wrote that the Nazis never equalled the rate of armaments and munitions production that Germany had achieved in WW I because of ideological constraints like keeping german women out of factories and pushing Nazi ideology instruction in school, to the detriment of science courses.

 

BTW we are still waiting for your list of characteristics that enable us to know in advance whether someone is a true Christian or not.

[Ouroboros]

I believe you are wrong for both, Jay. Althought they claimed that socialism is scientific, Soviet science was subject to Stalin's ideological preferences. Albert Speer wrote that the Nazis never equalled the rate of armaments and munitions production that Germany had achieved in WW I because of ideological constraints like keeping german women out of factories and pushing Nazi ideology instruction in school, to the detriment of science courses.

And I believe you're right.

 

Hitler only wanted to use technology and science to the degree that suited his own needs. Konrad Zuse was the first person ever to build an electronic computer, and it was years before the end of the war. Hitler refused to sponsor his project. If he had not, the enigma code would have been far more complicated to break.

 

The Soviet rulers only let scientists work on project they promoted as well. And the leading scientists in biology had the notion that Lamarckian evolution was the true one and not Darwinina... well, potatoes do not self-mutate to resist cold by planting them in winter... epic fail. And what about the dekulakization? 14.5 million starving. (sarc) Sure. Very scientific indeed. (/sarc)

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, the spirit of free inquiry necessary for real science is inimical to the preconceptions and agenda of totalitarian regimes. I might add, if the US is taken over by real fundies, our science will go down the drain as fast or faster.

[Thurisaz]

Academic Science had the preeminent position of honor both in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Union. Much more so than in USA of that time ( hey, we were Jesus folks back then... )

 

Morontheist standard crappy "argument" #1,442.

[blackpudd1n]

"Of Course Another Thought"

 

-careful, End. Thinking can be harmful to your faith

[lunaticheathen]

Did Jay blow Godwin?

[Guest end3]

"Of Course Another Thought"

 

-careful, End. Thinking can be harmful to your faith

 

Lol, I'll have to catch up on this thread P....haven't read it yet

[Guest end3]

Knowing nothing about this, one would think that since determinism is highly probable, then indeterminism would be the sum of an inexact function...tipping the scale so to speak, towards indeterminism. Easy to say, hard to determine.....which implies some deteministic trueness.....not necessarily from God.

 

And I don't know that if we can even discover more pieces to the function, that this will leave us with the complete understanding.

 

So we lean towards faith.

 

 

 

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

[bornagainathiest]

Knowing nothing about this, one would think that since determinism is highly probable, then indeterminism would be the sum of an inexact function...tipping the scale so to speak, towards indeterminism. Easy to say, hard to determine.....which implies some deteministic trueness.....not necessarily from God.

 

And I don't know that if we can even discover more pieces to the function, that this will leave us with the complete understanding.

 

So we lean towards faith.

 

 

 

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

 

Helpful Hint, End.

 

Please don't rely of Jay's opinion or knowledge on anything to do with science. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and fessed up to lying about his academic credentials. (Guess who caught him?) Anyway, shouldn't his title, "Obviously Obvious Troll" be enough of a warning?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ummm.

 

On the hand, if you're happy to get your science from these guys... http://www.answersingenesis.org/ ...please feel free to believe anything Jay writes. It'll probably make as little sense and be just as (un)trustworthy.

 

BAA.

[JayL]

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

 

 

You are not satisfied with the incredible computational capability of modern super computers?? LOL

 

 

But the fact is that the chaos theory proves that a complex deterministic system will still be unpredictable. It is called the Butterfly effect.

[JayL]

I believe you are wrong for both, Jay. Althought they claimed that socialism is scientific, Soviet science was subject to Stalin's ideological preferences. Albert Speer wrote that the Nazis never equalled the rate of armaments and munitions production that Germany had achieved in WW I because of ideological constraints like keeping german women out of factories and pushing Nazi ideology instruction in school, to the detriment of science courses.

And I believe you're right.

 

Hitler only wanted to use technology and science to the degree that suited his own needs. Konrad Zuse was the first person ever to build an electronic computer, and it was years before the end of the war. Hitler refused to sponsor his project. If he had not, the enigma code would have been far more complicated to break.

 

The Soviet rulers only let scientists work on project they promoted as well. And the leading scientists in biology had the notion that Lamarckian evolution was the true one and not Darwinina... well, potatoes do not self-mutate to resist cold by planting them in winter... epic fail. And what about the dekulakization? 14.5 million starving. (sarc) Sure. Very scientific indeed. (/sarc)

 

 

Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions.

[Guest Valk0010]

I believe you are wrong for both, Jay. Althought they claimed that socialism is scientific, Soviet science was subject to Stalin's ideological preferences. Albert Speer wrote that the Nazis never equalled the rate of armaments and munitions production that Germany had achieved in WW I because of ideological constraints like keeping german women out of factories and pushing Nazi ideology instruction in school, to the detriment of science courses.

And I believe you're right.

 

Hitler only wanted to use technology and science to the degree that suited his own needs. Konrad Zuse was the first person ever to build an electronic computer, and it was years before the end of the war. Hitler refused to sponsor his project. If he had not, the enigma code would have been far more complicated to break.

 

The Soviet rulers only let scientists work on project they promoted as well. And the leading scientists in biology had the notion that Lamarckian evolution was the true one and not Darwinina... well, potatoes do not self-mutate to resist cold by planting them in winter... epic fail. And what about the dekulakization? 14.5 million starving. (sarc) Sure. Very scientific indeed. (/sarc)

 

 

Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions.

I call a technical foul. Right Marxism as has failed. Left Marxism has never been tried.

[JayL]

 

BTW we are still waiting for your list of characteristics that enable us to know in advance whether someone is a true Christian or not.

 

 

 

Romans 10:9 (NIV)

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

 

So there are 2 conditions. 1. "Believe in your heart that Jesus Christ has resurrected." This is not just mental assent but this should be the deepest conviction within your heart based on Biblical facts and personal revelations. That conviction leads you to the second condition.

2. "Declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord'." That is, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is God the Son and He is above you. He fully deserves your obedience and loyalty.

 

 

If you meet these 2 conditions, you are a Christian. Otherwise, you are just a seeker or a church goer.

[JayL]

Knowing nothing about this, one would think that since determinism is highly probable, then indeterminism would be the sum of an inexact function...tipping the scale so to speak, towards indeterminism. Easy to say, hard to determine.....which implies some deteministic trueness.....not necessarily from God.

 

And I don't know that if we can even discover more pieces to the function, that this will leave us with the complete understanding.

 

So we lean towards faith.

 

 

 

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

 

Helpful Hint, End.

 

Please don't rely of Jay's opinion or knowledge on anything to do with science. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and fessed up to lying about his academic credentials. (Guess who caught him?) Anyway, shouldn't his title, "Obviously Obvious Troll" be enough of a warning?

.

.

BAA.

 

 

 

But it looks like I was the only one who knew the implication of Chaos theory in reference to the original question on this board !! Of course, now, BAA, the Bad Ass Atheist, will run to Wikepedia to find out what the heck Chaos theory is... LOL

 

See, the difference between you people and me is this: You guys love to READ about science and technology. I am a guy who actually DID quantum mechanics and other physics calculations for my professional work - and also taught physics and engineering on college level.

[Guest Valk0010]

Knowing nothing about this, one would think that since determinism is highly probable, then indeterminism would be the sum of an inexact function...tipping the scale so to speak, towards indeterminism. Easy to say, hard to determine.....which implies some deteministic trueness.....not necessarily from God.

 

And I don't know that if we can even discover more pieces to the function, that this will leave us with the complete understanding.

 

So we lean towards faith.

 

 

 

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

 

Helpful Hint, End.

 

Please don't rely of Jay's opinion or knowledge on anything to do with science. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and fessed up to lying about his academic credentials. (Guess who caught him?) Anyway, shouldn't his title, "Obviously Obvious Troll" be enough of a warning?

.

.

BAA.

 

 

 

But it looks like I was the only one who knew the implication of Chaos theory in reference to the original question on this board !! Of course, now, BAA, the Bad Ass Atheist, will run to Wikepedia to find out what the heck Chaos theory is... LOL

 

See, the difference between you people and me is this: You guys love to READ about science and technology. I am a guy who actually DID quantum mechanics and other physics calculations for my professional work - and also taught physics and engineering on college level.

For the condescension and fallacy or too here. My response

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1QCBF3h_tM

[JayL]

 

For the condescension and fallacy or too here. My response

 

 

 

 

I know, truth hurts.

[Guest Valk0010]

For the condescension and fallacy or too here. My response

 

 

 

 

I know, truth hurts.

Appeal to your own authority is a fallacy, and you got to prove chao's theory to make a analogy to it dumbass. Jesus didn't give you a sense of humor I guess.

[bornagainathiest]

Knowing nothing about this, one would think that since determinism is highly probable, then indeterminism would be the sum of an inexact function...tipping the scale so to speak, towards indeterminism. Easy to say, hard to determine.....which implies some deteministic trueness.....not necessarily from God.

 

And I don't know that if we can even discover more pieces to the function, that this will leave us with the complete understanding.

 

So we lean towards faith.

 

 

 

Whether a system is deterministic or not is a moot point anyway. Modern science of chaos theory has shown that even a 100% deterministic system is unpredictable.

 

Everything that counts and that can affect your life - the economy, the financial markets, weather tomorrow, freeway traffic patterns, earthquakes, the second coming of Christ, etc.

 

are ALL unpredictable.

 

 

I don't know Jay, I would think that we had the capability, that they would be predictable. I don't see us as having that capability nor ever having it.

 

Helpful Hint, End.

 

Please don't rely of Jay's opinion or knowledge on anything to do with science. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and fessed up to lying about his academic credentials. (Guess who caught him?) Anyway, shouldn't his title, "Obviously Obvious Troll" be enough of a warning?

.

.

BAA.

 

 

 

But it looks like I was the only one who knew the implication of Chaos theory in reference to the original question on this board !! Of course, now, BAA, the Bad Ass Atheist, will run to Wikepedia to find out what the heck Chaos theory is... LOL

 

Uh...no, Jay.

You weren't the only the only one here who knew the implications of Chaos theory with regard to the original question.

I did too... and probably before you.

 

(Nor do I need to run to Wikipedia. Btw, that's Wik-I-pedia, not Wik-E-pedia. Attention to detail is a key attribute of professionally-trained, college-educated people, ok? )

 

The difference between you and me is that I'm smart enough to see and understand that there's not much point in talking to End3 about such stuff. He's deeply mistrustful of science and it's findings. He's also in denial of much of science's conclusions about the physical universe. It conflicts with a lot of Bible-related stuff he'd prefer to be literally true. Couldn't you figure that out, Sherlock?

 

Understanding this about him, I chose NOT to raise the topic of Chaos Theory in this thread. I notice that you weren't you smart enough to see that and make the sensible, informed choice.

 

See, the difference between you people and me is this: You guys love to READ about science and technology. I am a guy who actually DID quantum mechanics and other physics calculations for my professional work - and also taught physics and engineering on college level.

 

No! No, Jay!

You (supposedly) taught these things AT college level, not ON college level. That kind of poor English indicates a poor standard of education. Something from the lower grades maybe, but not college.

 

Anyway, it seems that you aren't as smart as you'd have us believe.

Besides making elementary mistakes in spelling and grammar, if you really were college-level smart, you'd have understood that raising the subject of Chaos Theory with End was pointless.

You'd have noticed that he's got a strong anti-science bias.

You'd have noticed that he wrongly thinks a lot of people treat science as a religious belief system and so they blindly put their 'faith' in it.

You'd have noticed that he made a fundamental error in his opening message (which Thuriasz and Ouroboros picked him up on) about the predictability of sub-atomic particles.

 

Smart people notice such things and take them into account.

Taking them into account, they don't even bother raising such scientific concepts as Chaos Theory with End. They see that it'd be a waste of time.

 

So why didn't you see any of these things?

 

 

Of course! I know why!

 

Jay's the professionally trained Quantum physicist who thinks the universe is 15 billion years old, not 13.72!

 

Jay's taught physics at college level, but thinks that rainbows come about thru Rayleigh Scattering!

 

Jay lives a stone's throw from Mount Wilson observatory, but hasn't a clue about how Edwin Hubble used it's 100 inch Hooker telescope to discover Cepheid variables in the Andromeda galaxy!

 

And to cap it all...

 

JAY'S A SELF - CONFESSED LIAR!

 

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions.

Yeah. Right. The thing is that the governments were not more "sciency" than any other regime. In what sense do you mean that nazism and communism were scientifically based? And how come scientists fled to America away from those countries if they were so "sciency"?

[Guest Valk0010]

Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions.

Yeah. Right. The thing is that the governments were not more "sciency" than any other regime. In what sense do you mean that nazism and communism were scientifically based? And how come scientists fled to America away from those countries if they were so "sciency"?

Wasn't it true that Stalin didn't think the theory of evolution was true, because it seemed to capitalistic?

[Ouroboros]

Now that Nazism and communism have fallen, these atheist guys love to point out 'bad sciences' they practiced. When those regimes were strong, the same guys have thoroughly admired the scientific managements of their society unaffected by religions.

Yeah. Right. The thing is that the governments were not more "sciency" than any other regime. In what sense do you mean that nazism and communism were scientifically based? And how come scientists fled to America away from those countries if they were so "sciency"?

Wasn't it true that Stalin didn't think the theory of evolution was true, because it seemed to capitalistic?

Yes. Darwinian evolution. But he promoted Lamarckian evolution. There's a subtle, but very important difference.

 

Darwin suggested that mutations come first, then selection.

 

Lamarck suggested that mutations comes out of needs, i.e. fish mutate to have legs because they need to walk.

 

Soviet tried to evolve potato to survive frost by planting them in winter. It's like "training" them to become cold resistant. It didn't work. But the Soviet regime insisted on this because their top scientists had to have non-capitalist science, and Darwin's evolution was the one the West had adopted, so Darwin's evolution must then "logically" be a capitalistic lie. This is not science. It's politics.

[JayL]

Besides making elementary mistakes in spelling and grammar, if you really were college-level smart, you'd have understood that raising the subject of Chaos Theory with End was pointless.

You'd have noticed that he's got a strong anti-science bias.

You'd have noticed that he wrongly thinks a lot of people treat science as a religious belief system and so they blindly put their 'faith' in it.

You'd have noticed that he made a fundamental error in his opening message (which Thuriasz and Ouroboros picked him up on) about the predictability of sub-atomic particles.

 

 

BAA.

 

 

 

You are mistaken, my non-scientific friend. Behaviors of sub atomic particles are quite predictable under quantum mechanics. QED is the most accurately verified scientific theory out there!!! Now compare that with the weather science! Or people trying to predict the stock market!! To address END's original point correctly, you have to bring up Chaos theory ( because he is asking predictability in between macro and micro scale. )

 

 

But of course, none of people on this board had any idea because you guys are all science READERS...

 

Ok, now it is time to run to Wikipedia to educate yourself, BAA.