|
mzem919
Aug 18, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #2 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2005
Posts: 30
|
Sweet! so now I can blame God for all the times I've "fallen off" a climb. it wasn't that the climb was past my limits and I slid off due to gravity's pull being greater than my push, it was God pushing me off the rock. Good, that helps my ego greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Aug 18, 2005, 5:14 PM
Post #3 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
HMMMMMM
hows this for great reasoning:
"If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
I'm convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 18, 2005, 5:15 PM
Post #4 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
In reply to: "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,"
That's why I keep popping out of those damn finger cracks. All this time I thought the man was keeping me down. :)
|
|
|
|
|
karma
Aug 18, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #5 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 95
|
"What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
This has to be one of my favorite Onion quotes of all time... comes rather close to "Alcohol is my Anti-Drug" and their "Jesus Returns to the NBA!" t-shirt!
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 18, 2005, 5:47 PM
Post #6 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Sure glad we got that 1 cleared up.
|
|
|
|
|
knol
Aug 18, 2005, 6:38 PM
Post #7 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 81
|
fucking american taliban
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Aug 18, 2005, 7:08 PM
Post #8 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
In reply to: f---ing american taliban
Hey, I LIKE the Onion. It's funny stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
knol
Aug 18, 2005, 7:33 PM
Post #9 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 81
|
In reply to: Hey, I LIKE the Onion. It's funny stuff.
that was meant for evangelics, not the onion... the american taliban refers to all those kid raping, media controlling extremist right wing bastards... southern baptists, evangelics... and especially the moonies
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Aug 18, 2005, 7:57 PM
Post #10 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
While I have yet to hear a compelling argument, proving the existence of God, nor do I believe in gravity as an effect of Intelligent Design, the fact that gravity has yet to be indisputably proven does make for an interesting topic of discussion. This brief article doesn't pertain directly to climbing, although the author's point of view is interesting:
Gravity's just a theory, too.
Creationists and those who firmly believe climate change isn't driven by humans miss the point: science isn't about providing certainty. It's about providing uncertainty.
Take gravity. Gravity is something that we can observe pretty easily just by dropping an apple. We can note correlations (massier planets seem to have larger gravitational fields, for example). We can guess that, since the flux per unit area through the surface of a sphere decreases as the inverse square of the sphere's radius, gravity is subject to the inverse square law. We can even posit underlying mechanisms linking gravity to a specific particle, like the Higgs boson. What we can't do is prove that we understand how gravity works, except in terms of other theories (like particle theory and general relativity). We also can't guarantee that gravity functions the same way (or at all!) in places out of our direct experimental reach -- we can just show that the cosmological motions we see match our expectations were gravity to work the same.
These are the same objections that people bring to evolution and climatology: we don't understand much about the underlying mechanisms in either area. We can't show that the same rules that we see operating today are the rules that operated 2,000 or 4,000 or 500,000 years ago. We can say that what we see in the fossil record and among living organisms today strongly suggests a single common ancestor for all life on earth; but we can't rule out the theory that God created the earth 6,000 years ago, because we don't have any objective observers from that time. We certainly can't demonstrate that human activity has caused climate warming, although there do seem to be significant correlations between human activity and climate change. (Note that correlation does not imply causation, though.)
So, why is gravity undisputed (except by Flat Earth people)? And why are climate change and evolution such hot topics? I'm not sure, but I can suggest a few reasons.
Gravity is undisputed today partly because no religion has made the precise mechanism a point of recent dispute. It used to be in dispute, though; remember Galileo? That, ultimately, was a dispute about gravity on the scale of our solar system. Yet no edicts about the Higgs boson, or general relativity, have emanated from the Catholic Church, and Bush doesn't seem to care about gravity.
Another reason that people don't argue much about gravity is that the theory of gravity is predictive. Given a comet's position and momentum, we can tell you pretty much where it's going to go. It's a little harder in atmosphere, but we do it very well -- think ballistic missiles, for example. This predictive power goes a long way towards quieting dissent with the theory, because if you can predict something people will generally believe you understand it pretty well. (We'll come back to this.)
Evolution, for better or for worse, is not in the same position. It's a major point of dispute in at least a few places, and it's not predictive in the least. Even worse, it can't be very specific in predictions, because it's a stochastic theory that is subject to historical contingency. We will never be able to predict what mutations will arise randomly, and we will probably never be able to predict what effect those mutations will have on ecosystems. We might be able to predict general trends, but that is still far away from being an exact science.
Climatology is a much younger science than either the physics of gravity or the study of evolution. Like evolution, and unlike gravity, it seems to be very sensitive to certain kinds of perturbations -- that is, it's "chaotic". Very small changes may have large effects elsewhere. Moreover we don't understand many of the basic processes very well, and we don't have good ways to measure even relatively simple things like energy input from the sun, much less complicated things like CO2 consumption. Climatology is certainly not a predictive science in general, although some things can be predicted, just like in evolution: if you know where a hurricane is today, you can guess pretty well where it's going to be tomorrow.
Climatology is also a big point of contention for economic reasons: global warming, in particular. Corporations don't want to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses because they believe that it will have a negative economic impact on them. Therefore they (or their proxies) attack global warming as an unproven theory, in order to undermine its impact on public policy. As with the religiously motivated attacks on evolution, this is definitely bad for science.
If we could predict climate, or predict the effects of evolution, presumably people would regard these theories as being more credible than they are now. Unfortunately it's impossible to turn evolution into a predictive theory, and it's going to be a while before we get a predictive handle on climatology. So both theories are amenable to attack on the charges of being "unproven".
And here we come to the nut: the scientific method can't prove anything, in general. It is is much, much better at disproving theories than it is at confirming them; any working scientist will agree with that! All that an honest scientist can say about gravity, or evolution, or global warming, is that they haven't been disproven yet. There are reasons to believe that gravity and evolution are pretty good theories, scientifically speaking, because they've withstood the test of time. I'm not very knowledgeable about climatology but I do know it's quite a bit shakier in its underpinnings. But attacking any of these theories for not having provided proof is missing the whole point of science, which is to disprove as much as possible.
People -- even many intelligent people who should know better -- frequently get this wrong. Michael Crichton, the prolific author of (among other books) Jurassic Park, gave an interesting lecture at Caltech where he talked about scientist's involvement in political debates on public policy. Nuclear winter and global warming were two examples where a strongly biased view has been pushed strongly and publicly by a relatively small cadre of scientists. Crichton's view seemed to be that scientists were no less fallible than anyone else, which is undeniable (though unpopular among scientists ;). What he missed, and what I think many scientists fail to emphasize, is that thus far the scientific method -- with objective measurements and peer review, in particular -- is the only proven method of discovery known to mankind. We ignore it at our peril.
Scientists can do their part by proudly admitting ignorance. It's not pleasant, but it's undeniable: did you know, for example, that the underlying mechanism by which evolutionary novelty arises is still in dispute? Yep! We still don't really understand how new traits arise! And did you know that the precise reflectivity of the earth -- which is a major determinant of energy input into our climate, and is directly linked to the "greenhouse effect" -- is still not easily measurable? Yep! No long-term trends available! And these are just two things I've worked on -- I'm sure there's an ocean of ignorance out there, just waiting to be publicized. That's science!
The flip side of the coin is that those who critically examine scientific theories should apply the same level of critical analysis to their own beliefs. This applies to postmodern lit-crit as much as it applies to religious believers -- and I think it's as important as science is, as a method for making public policy.
Another interesting hypothesis can be found at: www.river.org/~jerry/grav1.htm
KC
|
|
|
|
|
hazael
Aug 18, 2005, 8:13 PM
Post #11 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 130
|
C'mon!!!! that says that there is no god in the outter space or what?, maybe that there he/she/it does not want us to fall?
so, when flying a plane we are defying god? or are we fooling god?.... what about flying animals? those are sacrilegious?
actually the climbers can climb cause this "celestial" force that we call gravity... our moves and strength are based on it.
isn't it god strong enough to keep us at sea level?
i think all this is hilarious but stupid at the same time. How can somebody come up with something as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
montafoner
Aug 18, 2005, 8:40 PM
Post #13 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 143
|
Most importantly, what are you going to do about it? Sadly the school boards in Kansas aren't bright enough to see through this nonsense and will probably agree to let it be taught. If nothing is being done to nip it in the bud, we will end up like the many countries ruled by religious ideology (Iran, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia?) instead of critical-thinking based decisions.
What will you do when this plague of idiocy reaches your school? Drop brick on their heads and say that God wanted them dead?
Why don't the religious zealots waste their money in building their own "Schools of intelligent design" with their own money instead of wasting our tax dollars on teaching lies.
|
|
|
|
|
montafoner
Aug 18, 2005, 8:42 PM
Post #14 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 143
|
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Aug 18, 2005, 8:47 PM
Post #15 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
Thnak you jv.
May you forever be touched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Aug 18, 2005, 9:02 PM
Post #16 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
rufus & co thank you for that post. that was excellent.
in layman's terms though: this is by far the funniest thing I've read that sadly illustrates the ignorance of religous fundamentalists to everything but themselves.
Kinda reminded me of Orwell's 1984 when Brian says to Winston that if he believes that there is no such thing as gravity, then there isn't. He simply choses not to float away.
It's amazing that at this point in time, when knowlege is so easily accessible, there are still so many people who chose to be uneducated idiots. I went to school with a girl who was absolutely convinced that the world was no older than 10,000 years and all that carbon-dating stuff you see is just a media hoax. It's truly scary when you meet someone who's brain is that degenerated.
just my 1.62 Euro-cents ...
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Aug 18, 2005, 9:17 PM
Post #17 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
Boondock, your Orwellian analogy is right on the mark, and I couldn't agree more. Once again, George Santayana's maxim profundly applies " Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And humans refer to Possums as obtuse creatures.
|
|
|
|
|
bigeyedfish81
Aug 18, 2005, 9:57 PM
Post #18 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 24
|
PostPosted: 18 Aug 2005 21:02 Post subject: Re: Intelligent Falling
rufus & co thank you for that post. that was excellent.
in layman's terms though: this is by far the funniest thing I've read that sadly illustrates the ignorance of religous fundamentalists to everything but themselves.
Kinda reminded me of Orwell's 1984 when Brian says to Winston that if he believes that there is no such thing as gravity, then there isn't. He simply choses not to float away.
It's amazing that at this point in time, when knowlege is so easily accessible, there are still so many people who chose to be uneducated idiots. I went to school with a girl who was absolutely convinced that the world was no older than 10,000 years and all that carbon-dating stuff you see is just a media hoax. It's truly scary when you meet someone who's brain is that degenerated.
just my 1.62 Euro-cents ...
Its called faith. There is no difference between yourself and the person who you call an "uneducated idiot". Whereas some people put their faith in God, you put your faith in the scientist/scholar who is publishing these arcitlce/textbooks/research. One thing you learn as you progress through socialized education is that EVERYTHING is subject to fallacy. We know things today that we didn't know yesterday, and the day before that and so on. While education has its benefits, it too often produces narrow minded radicals such as yourself that *I MY GOSH* discover everything they know just so happens to be the absolute truth. Nevermind the countless millions upon millions of people who think/believe differently than you...they too must all be idiots. The true sign of an idiot is someone who thinks they are always right . Let me ask you this...what if you are wrong? Then what???
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Aug 18, 2005, 10:20 PM
Post #19 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
epic_ed moved this thread from View this Website to Community.
|
|
|
|
|
rvega
Aug 18, 2005, 10:30 PM
Post #20 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 421
|
In reply to: Its called faith. There is no difference between yourself and the person who you call an "uneducated idiot". Whereas some people put their faith in God, you put your faith in the scientist/scholar who is publishing these arcitlce/textbooks/research. One thing you learn as you progress through socialized education is that EVERYTHING is subject to fallacy. We know things today that we didn't know yesterday, and the day before that and so on. While education has its benefits, it too often produces narrow minded radicals such as yourself that *I MY GOSH* discover everything they know just so happens to be the absolute truth. Nevermind the countless millions upon millions of people who think/believe differently than you...they too must all be idiots. The true sign of an idiot is someone who thinks they are always right . Let me ask you this...what if you are wrong? Then what???
Then nothing. It's not here nor there really. If God is as forgiving as Jesus says why punish those he granted free will to be a non believer? I went to Catholic school for a long time and nothing I was taught ever suggested that if person a lives a moral life but happens to have been born in India and therefore is Hindu that they should rot in hell.
And if the Bible said the Earth was flat, would true believers say that the media and all scientific findings to the contrary are just a massive hoax to maintain a secular and immoral world. Seems pretty silly, and yet we have a president suggesting that intelligent design is worthy or debate. It's not because it is inheriently untestable.
But you are absolutely right that someone who claims they are always right is an idiot...but unfortunately I'd have to say the same thing for people who say that the Bible is always right, and many evangelicals spouting their moral authority do just that. Therefore....idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Aug 18, 2005, 10:34 PM
Post #21 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
To say that I am narrow minded is your assumption. I am only suggesting that too many people are too quick to jump on the religious bandwagon before attempting to scientifically resolve unanswered questions. The fact is that I am the one who posted the differing views in the first place. Resorting to insults is the least productive way to evolve as an intelligent species. I don't believe that boondock's comment was meant to insult anyone's faith in the existence of God. I believe that he was referring to religious radicals. They also exist. If my response to his comment in any way appeared to insult your faith, please accept my apologies. My sole intention was to keep minds open to the fact that science has yet to indisputably proving gravity. I never meant to insult anyone. KC
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Aug 18, 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #22 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: PostPosted: 18 Aug 2005 21:02 Post subject: Re: Intelligent Falling rufus & co thank you for that post. that was excellent. in layman's terms though: this is by far the funniest thing I've read that sadly illustrates the ignorance of religous fundamentalists to everything but themselves. Kinda reminded me of Orwell's 1984 when Brian says to Winston that if he believes that there is no such thing as gravity, then there isn't. He simply choses not to float away. It's amazing that at this point in time, when knowlege is so easily accessible, there are still so many people who chose to be uneducated idiots. I went to school with a girl who was absolutely convinced that the world was no older than 10,000 years and all that carbon-dating stuff you see is just a media hoax. It's truly scary when you meet someone who's brain is that degenerated. just my 1.62 Euro-cents ... Its called faith. There is no difference between yourself and the person who you call an "uneducated idiot". Whereas some people put their faith in God, you put your faith in the scientist/scholar who is publishing these arcitlce/textbooks/research. One thing you learn as you progress through socialized education is that EVERYTHING is subject to fallacy. We know things today that we didn't know yesterday, and the day before that and so on. While education has its benefits, it too often produces narrow minded radicals such as yourself that *I MY GOSH* discover everything they know just so happens to be the absolute truth. Nevermind the countless millions upon millions of people who think/believe differently than you...they too must all be idiots. The true sign of an idiot is someone who thinks they are always right . Let me ask you this...what if you are wrong? Then what???
To say that I am narrow minded is your assumption. I am only suggesting that too many people are too quick to jump on the religious bandwagon before attempting to scientifically resolve unanswered questions. The fact is that I am the one who posted the differing views in the first place. Resorting to insults is the least productive way to evolve as an intelligent species. I don't believe that boondock's comment was meant to insult anyone's faith in the existence of God. I believe that he was referring to religious radicals. They also exist.
If my response to his comment in any way appeared to insult your faith, please accept my apologies. My intention was to keep minds open to the fact that science has yet to indisputably prove gravity. I also wanted to remind us all that blindly following radical ideologies cannot help us to evolve as an intelligent species. I never meant to insult anyone. KC
|
|
|
|
|
knol
Aug 18, 2005, 10:38 PM
Post #23 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 81
|
In reply to: Its called faith. There is no difference between yourself and the person who you call an "uneducated idiot". Whereas some people put their faith in God, you put your faith in the scientist/scholar who is publishing these arcitlce/textbooks/research. One thing you learn as you progress through socialized education is that EVERYTHING is subject to fallacy. We know things today that we didn't know yesterday, and the day before that and so on. While education has its benefits, it too often produces narrow minded radicals such as yourself that *I MY GOSH* discover everything they know just so happens to be the absolute truth. Nevermind the countless millions upon millions of people who think/believe differently than you...they too must all be idiots. The true sign of an idiot is someone who thinks they are always right . Let me ask you this...what if you are wrong? Then what???
youre right, someone who thinks theyre always right is an idiot... youre right, new evidence comes out that contradicts scientific theories all the time... now how is it that having the ability to incorporate new theories, makes me a narrow minded person... not every religion can be the right one... someone has to have it wrong... but theres only a few religions that i can think of, that allow other religions evidence of a higher power to be incorporated within their respective teachings... whats the difference between a corrupt scientist who writes a bogus theory, and a corrupt priest who writes a bogus holy scripture...
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Aug 18, 2005, 10:54 PM
Post #24 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
Just so we're all on the same page, as dead-on as the Intelligent Falling "article" is, everyone does know that it is a satire of the Intelligent Design "debate" in Kansas, and not real news, right? The Onion does not report news: they make it up, brilliantly I might add.
The picture shows Dr. John Sulston talking about the Human Genome Project.
http://212.58.226.40/.../sci/tech/806704.stm
A possible source for the IF "theory":
http://exitsection.blogspot.com/...lligent-falling.html
JV
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Aug 18, 2005, 11:04 PM
Post #25 of 96
(4772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
[quote="knol"]In reply to: ...whats the difference between a corrupt scientist who writes a bogus theory, and a corrupt priest who writes a bogus holy scripture...
If a scientist writes a bogus theory and then tests it, the data will not support said theory (really a hopothesis at this point)
If a scientist publishes bunk work which is wrong and fabricated, he/she will be "flamed" by the scientific community and his/her claims will lose credibility. They may lose their job, or their (future) grants...
THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE. it does not claim to know all, it is in search of more knowledge. If new data shows an old theory is wrong (or more likely needs revision) then that's what happens.
For the record, I respect your belief in God and yes, I BELIEVE that science is correct.
Skinny
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
