On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.



BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God. The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me

Wanna bet?

and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God.

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the
universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence
of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly
does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest
that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of
their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable?
What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that
thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Mike

Mike, I knew that when I opened the can of worms at the start of this
particular discussion in this thread, that the discussion would get a
little intense. I have been watching your particular discussion with
Scott, and I certainly don't want to jump into the middle of your fun
and distract either of you. However if I could get a little of your
attention on the side, I would like to ask you a few questions. Though
I do not necessarily agree, I appreciate your perpective and your
intensity of thought, and thought process.

You apparently believe strongly in the scientific approach, and do not
believe that religion, and in particular Christianity has much to offer
the 21st century man. Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

It is easy to throw around the Cat. Ch. and the Jesuits, and things
that happened hundreds of years ago. I wasn't there, nor you, so it is
hard to know what was really going on, or interview those scientist
that were there at the time. And similarily, today I can only interview
you. You are the scientist of today in my experience, so I hope you can
entertain my little fantascy, and share your insight and personal
observations that you base your personal philosophy. Respectfully TnT

On 17-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Is there any conceivable reason that you would
change your mind about God, Christianity, etc. In other words is your
mind closed, or open to the possibility that there is a God, and what
is your basis for coming to this conclusion. In particular, I would
like to know your personal scientific experience in coming to your
conclusions.

You misinterpret my statements. I agree with your statements
to the effect that the physical world and the spiritual world
are separate. We can neither prove nor disprove the existance of
God - hence I am an agnostic. Note that agnosticism is not the
same thing as atheism.

As far as Christianity goes - I was raised a Christian but cannot
justify what I see going on around me in the name of Christ (or God).
I also cannot see why any one religion (or creation myth) should
be any more believable than any other. My opposition to religion
does not affect my personal beliefs. If there was a religion that
was reasonable and honest, I might find it possible to follow their
teachings.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

That's not necessarily true. Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept. Of course, one of the root
difficulties is defining "God" and what that means. Does it mean a white guy
in a robe with a long beard, or does it mean some intelligence so superior
to our own that it appears to be omnipotent and/or omnicient? Or does it
mean something else.


There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design.

Are you sure?

It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

Nor does it disprove it. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.


A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong.

That would be tautology. Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Recognizing that
improbability is a significant issue when examining events is sound
scientific thinking. Bowing to the diety of "Random Chance" combined with
the companion hypothesis of "Infinite Variation" is no more scientific than
a simple belief in God.

Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

True, but not really relevant, since it was the scientific asses the numbers
were pulled from. The "fundies" are merely suggesting, Occam's Razor-wise,
that when an event is highly statistically improbable, it's perhaps more
reasonable to conclude that there is some meddling with random chance going
on that skews the system towards the occurrence of the statistically highly
improbable event. You might call it a risk of "observer bias."
Schroedinger's cat might be more than a cloud of probabilities if God's
unseen thumb is on the scale.


There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Not really. The only real impediments to a hydrogen economy are
infrastructure and investment...and consumer acceptance of the
inconveniences associated with using a less energy dense fuel than oil. But
the concept is hardy smoke and mirrors, and indeed technology is moving on
apace to make it a realistic, economic reality...which is a good thing.


Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making assumptions
again?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well. You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.

This is weiser at his absurd best.

Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved.

Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. If it occurs,
nothing changes. If you are overly focused on the probability, then you start
searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding. If there is a
legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the
"intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of
the dice.

less energy dense fuel than oil

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy
that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of
transporting energy. It doesn't address an energy problem, only a
portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s)
of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the
associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of
reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not
a solution.

Mike