Connect with us

Even Better Reading for Non-Weenies

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by mpm, Oct 1, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. mpm

    mpm Guest

    I'm catching up on my podcasts, listening to NPR in the background...
    Apparently, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs have recently
    extracted ancient yeast spores (captured in amber) and are making a
    new type of beer out of it.

    First, you got to like the Company name. Very cool.
    I've not tried it yet (and will probably make sure other drinkers
    don't turn into "Bruneldfly" first).

    For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
    Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!

  2. Well now, if God really did create everything, and he chose to make it
    APPEAR to be billions of years old, how would we go about detecting the

    Picture God, in the void, 6700 years ago, playing with something like
    this: . He's got a vial labeled "Carbon 14",
    one labeled "Carbon 13", and one labeled "Carbon 12". He can mix them
    up in any ratio he wants to. Then he can use that carbon to make an
    interesting fossil (with or without transitional forms, depending on his
    whim at the moment) and stuff it into a geological stratum that matches
    what the radiocarbon dating would say.

    Ice cores, K-T boundary iridium levels, entrapped atmospheric gas
    ratios, all the details pointing to the same number. But MADE that way.

    The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
    invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
    a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
  3. Guest

    And if she was being that careful, why would we bother knowing?

    If she is prepared to go to all that trouble to let us believe in a
    4.5 billion year old earth, only the most disrespectful god-botherer
    would go to the trouble of believing anything different.

    After all, the book that Sarah Palin and her ilk use to justify their
    eccentric chronology may have been written by God, but God wasn't too
    careful in her choice of printers and publishers, because it is
    crawling with self-contradictions, whereas the book God wrote in the
    fossil record seems to be remarkable self-consistent, if a little
    harder to read.
  4. Guest

    Liberals have their religion too....

    Global warming

    Communism (my Gosh, how come the deaths of 100 million people don't
    seem to deter liberals from socialism ----> which leads to ------>

    The religious belief that we can NOT get oil and somehow magical
    energy beams will show up at our doorstep to power our cars.


    Mother Earth planet worship

    and evolution comes packed with dogmas and philisophical conclusions

    Christians lay out their issues of dogma and faith and label them for
    what they are. Liberals take their religion and call it "Science".

    Never yet met a Christian that denies the principles and laws of
    electricity, physics, chemistry, mechanics.

    Its only the so called "sciences" that can't be proven and have all
    kinds of political ramifications attached to their acceptance that the
    Christians reject.
  5. mpm

    mpm Guest

    You left out medicine, (a science), which by itself disproves what you
    just claimed.
  6. PeterD

    PeterD Guest

    Why would he bother? He'd cover up the facts that prove the existance
    of him, when that is what he (appears) to want? In that case, I'd
    think he were some kind of idiot.
  7. TheM

    TheM Guest

    On the other hand, that would explain a lot of things happening on this planet :)

  8. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Hey, let's face it - given the laws of physics, etc., that came out
    of the Big Bang, evolution is the only intelligent way to design a
    Universe. ;-)

  9. God doesn't have to be a liar; he just has to have some plan that's
    beyond our comprehension. Science describes our universe based on
    observations and a rigorous set of rules for interpreting those

    Science doesn't actually say what's "real", because (insert lengthy
    philosophical rant of your choice on the meaning of "real" here).
    Science describes a view of reality and the universe that has the
    highest achievable level of internal consistency.

    If our observations lack detail, our conclusions may be out of step with
    "reality" (see above). For instance, the universe used to rotate around
    the earth. Later, more detailed observations showed plainly that it
    rotated around the sun. We now "know" that if the universe rotates at
    all, the center of rotation is... well, someplace really way farther
    away than that.

    Nowadays we see the earth as being billions of years old. That's
    certainly what it looks like to Science. It could have been built 6000
    years ago, or ten seconds ago, or (as some claim) last Thursday. But it
    LOOKS billions of years old. Why? Maybe because it IS billions of
    years old. Or maybe because it LOOKS billions of years old to our
    current Science. Future Scientific discoveries may revise that figure.

    My point is simply this: Science is a closed system. It's expandable,
    but it remains closed. Science is closed in that it only deals with
    concepts that can be expressed scientifically, are testable, and are
    falsifiable. Not all concepts meet those criteria. That doesn't make
    them worthless, it just makes them scientifically irrelevant.

    Occam's Razor proves nothing and disproves nothing. I looked it up.
  10. JSprocket

    JSprocket Guest

    Still makes it a liar. It also means that god has a morality different
    from the one it wants to impose on us. It makes gods irrelevant to humans.

  11. Guest

    Ignornt idiots who can't follow the tolerably complicated science
    involved do claim that that global warming is a religious dogma. It
    isn't, but educating idiots is difficult and not all that rewarding.
    Socialism predates communism, which split off from mainstream
    socialism sometime in the 1870's - communists believed in the "leading
    role of the party" which regular socialists prophetically rejected as
    a form of tyrannical oligarchy. Democratic socialism is alive and well
    in Western Europe, and doesn't show any sign of evolving into a new
    In fact there is a rational belief that oil is going to get more
    expensive as we run through the easily extracted stuff and have to
    rely on less accessible sources like oil shales, to the point where
    electric cars are going to become popular. It would help if we managed
    to develop a somewhat more magical battery technology than the ones
    we've found so far, but the technology we've got would do an adequate
    Isn't a religion, and is perfectly practical. Veganism - which rejects
    dairy products - is a lot less practicable, but happily it is confined
    to the lunatic fringe.
    Strawman, Have you ever heard of a Mother Earth planet worshipper
    anywhere but in a right-wig denunciation?
    Such as?
    Christians aren't in the habit of publishing papers in peer-reviewed
    journals pointing out that various aspects of their faith are wrong or
    inadequate and proposing better alternative dogmas, Science isn't a
    religion and religions would look very odd if they adopted the
    scientific method of establshing their dogmas.
    Well the Pope has finally got around to saying that Gallileo hadn't
    got it wrong, but it took the Catholic Church some three hundred years
    to get that far.
    According to Popper, scientific ideas can't be absolutely proven - the
    best that science can claim is that their current theory hasn't been
    falsified yet. Because Christians believe that God told them stuff,
    they do think that they can declare some theories to be true - that
    was the logic that the Catholic Church used to declare Gallileo's
    ideas heretical - so you don't seem to know much about the subject.
  12. Internally:

  13. Did you try any of the experiments, or did you just pooh-pooh the whole
    site, having decided that you're wiser than God herself?

  14. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    The sort of religious nitwits who believe that God is an omniscient
    Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
    when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
    the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
    that are quite close together in the upper thorax.

    It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
    problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
  15. Guest

    This is typical rhetoric from the "scientific" crowd who hide their
    beliefs behind a lab jacket. Fact is that there are way too many
    variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge.

    Why don't we hear about the ozone layer dissapearing anymore? How
    about acid rain? Remember in the 70's it was global cooling that was
    going to do us in. All these predicted catastrophies by "scientific"
    individuals are now all forgoten. I guess we don't hear about them
    anymore because

    1. The political agenda attached to these doomsday predictions were

    2. They became too hard to defend, so they just kind of melted away.

    Here is a list of complete idiots for you to peruse:

    If oil gets more expensive because the market cannot deliver it, then
    so be it. I have a problem with oil becoming more expensive because
    liberal politicians feel it needs to be more expensive (of course
    because of global warming) . They therefore limit the drilling of oil
    - all to save the planet of course (They are such noble people).

  16. Guest

    Looks like you are smarter than God.

  17. Guest

    I'm clearly smarter than whatever designed the routing of the vagus
    nerve in the neck of the giraffe - since it obviously wasn't designed,
    but evolved - and I'm certainly better-informed than anybody who
    believes Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that might be
    taught as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution.
  18. Guest

    Buleg finds that "there are way too many variables in global weather
    for anyone to claim knowledge." The world's best climatologists have a
    different opinion.

    I think I'll go with the climatologists - Buleg isn't a name that
    appears in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
    We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-destroying fluorcarbons being
    injected into the atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
    Problem solved.
    Coal burning power stations now have scrubbers in their smoke stacks
    to take out the sulphur dioxide that was causing the acid rain.
    Problem solved.
    It wasn't global cooling, but North Atlantic cooling. There are still
    anxieties about the Gulf Stream - if the Greenland ice-cap melts too
    fast, the extra fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic could turn
    off the Gulf Stream and make the Northern atlantic and the surrounding
    countries a lot cooler for a while. Since the 1970's the Gulf Stream
    has been examined in some detail and while it has slowed down a bit,
    there doesn't seem to be any immediate risk that it will turn off
    completely and bring on an Even Younger Dryas
    You don't hear about them any more because you are the kind of ill-
    informed twit who doesn't listen in the right places.

  19. Yeah, I felt the same way the first time I looked at a PCB layout that
    had a bunch of traces that would connect to ground on one end, wander
    around the board aimlessly for a while, and then just stop.*

    Turns out there were very good reasons for that, I just wasn't smart
    enough at the time to see them. So I was sure I could have done a
    better board layout than _that_ guy.

    I'm with you on the concept that Intelligent Design Theory is pretty
    ridiculous. The problem is that "theory" is a scientific term, and all
    the evidence for an Intelligent Creator is unscientific. The ID'ers
    just trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into a science
    classroom. I'm entertained by how transparently silly the arguments are
    on both sides.

    *My apologies for dragging this thread somewhat closer to the group
    charter. I'll try not to let it happen again.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day