Phi for All

Are you referring to the fact that primates (including us) evolved from quadrupedal mammals, which evolved from small reptiles, all the way back to the first vertebrate fish? In that case, I'm pretty sure you're right. Or are you saying that humans (who are primates) couldn't have evolved our level of intelligence without somehow breeding with aliens? If that's the case, I really wish you'd take all the time you've put into watching those Pye videos and study some evolution instead. Please don't waste another minute; you owe it to yourself to study a subject before you look for alternatives to it.

If it's a design, it's likely aimed at foiling a bigger design. The one that keeps applying private business models where they're bound to either fail or be less efficient than publicly funded ones. Part of this design has made you forget that, in a democracy, WE are the government. If you feel "government-run" is synonymous with "inept", then you're really blaming yourself. But the pundits know we don't like to blame ourselves for anything, so they make it easy to point fingers. Another part of this design tells you that you shouldn't have to pay taxes for programs you don't benefit from, like welfare (if you're well employed) or education (if you have no children) or medical care (if you're healthier than many people you know) or public recreation (if you own your own pool or parkland). This design tells you that this tax money is needed elsewhere, and threatens to turn us into socialist/communist/anti-Americans. It makes us forget that we all benefit from being (and being around) smarter, healthier, well-adjusted and happier members of our society. Please, someone show me how this is NOT the cumulative effect of allowing corporate charters and special business interests to get out of hand. Corporations, since the time of our founding fathers, have been a source of both great pride and great consternation. Like the military, they serve a vital function in our society, but they MUST be kept in check if we're to balance all the parts of that society. We've let corporations become too powerful; they're pushing harmful, short-sighted laws, they're being allowed to govern themselves and that's just stupid. Corporations are NOT people.

I'd really like to see someone object to this without using the blatantly false memes about the government's inability to run successful programs and how all the good doctors will repatriate.

Here's part of the problem. The scientific method relies on evidence, not opinion. First there's all the testing that supports the skull being human (only). Then we have historical evidence to support that this was a case of hydrocephalus, which explains the skull naturally without invoking extraterrestrials. Science is willing to entertain doubt, but in this case it's not very entertaining, since nothing anomalous warrants more than the standard, skeptical grain of doubt.

That, at least, is happening. This is an Administrator duty and we have three of them trying their best across a huge puddle and several hours time difference to figure out what's happening. It doesn't seem to be a single solution problem, so they're trying to fix the pieces without taking the whole site down to do it. We're trying to put the best face on this, and please don't take the attempts at levity as a lack of concern. Though all unpaid volunteers, the entire staff has a great deal of vested interest in our community here at SFN. We thank you for your patience; you all are the best, brightest and most interesting people we know and it's agony to think we might lose any of you to technical issues.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant please don't respond to WWLR's tangent about "Money is the only observable god", so those posts don't get split to become a new thread. This will give him the chance to start the thread and title it on his own. Again, sorry.

If no one responds to this, we could give WWLabRat a shot at a better intro and his own title.... These aren't the topics you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

I'll let you know as soon as I find an extra two hours to watch a 14 year old video from the International UFO Congress. If this is that "Starchild Skull" garbage, that was debunked, so no, no facts are involved here.

Today has been better.

He joined to make this his first post, in one of the mainstream science sections. I think he's dead serious, at least about dismissing evolution.

OMFSM, can you actually be serious?! Are you saying I could describe Thor accurately, right down to the innumerable weathered scars around the whitened knuckles gripping his mighty, thunderous hammer and the beetled brow frosted with the rime of Asgard air... and that would confirm he exists? We wouldn't need priests, then, just good writers. This thread is still about theistic scientists, right? Not theists who think rigor in science isn't important?

! Moderator Note Please take the time to read the rules of the Speculation forum. This may explain why requests for evidence seem "urgent".

You've practically insured you'll never find out. Your agenda is obvious (though incomprehensible) and makes discussion pointless.

I call myself an alcoholic and I don't get shunned. I use the term partially to remind me that, though I haven't had a drink in over 20 years, I'm just one drink away at any time. And I'm great with that, because every day I overcome it again. I'm guessing you don't realize how much power for good there is in a bad name. I think your new term is a prop. If you're trying to overcome your bad decisions, you need to identify them for what they really are. Overcoming them is what should sustain your positive self-image, not using some term that would clump me in with thieves and... and... SMOKERS!

"Same level"? Please, no more vague and arguable definitions of equivalency, I beg you! Let's use the contextual framework that makes the most sense here. As for the biological aspect, can't it be argued that "Let Us make man in Our own image" and pregnifying a virgin heavily imply some biological aspects for God? Even burning bushes are... wait for it... biological.

! Moderator Note I'd like to move this to Philosophy, if you don't mind. In Speculations, you'd have to show some evidential support for your claims, and this seems more like a subjective observation. Also, for us older human specimens, could you use the default font size? We like it when everyone uses effects sparingly and for emphasis rather than on whole posts. Thanks, and welcome to SFN!

Absolutely.

Have surgical costs gone up with the temperatures because they need more nurses to wipe their brows?

What does the male geek do when the female geek is horny? He laser.

500th reply! Fortunately, I speak Iggtalian. This means, "I agree with iNow's answers on your oversimplified, unemotional and annoyingly controlling little test. So you're wrong, it's not just one down, it's two. Yeah, I think two." Fortunately, cunning linguist that I am, I also speak iNowvajo! He's saying, "Iggy, you loveable knucklehead, like many things, there are multiple ways to show how something is, at the same time, like AND unlike something else. It all depends on the context. Gods and dragons ARE equivalent IF you're talking about the evidence used to support their existence, or how we can't make either appear at will. And they are NOT equivalent IF you're talking about how popular they are, or how many heads they have, or how corn-intolerant they are. So let's agree to bury the hatchet somewhere far away from either of our enormous heads and agree that we're on the same page technically." * * If I'm directing, this scene flips back and forth using tight head shots, with both iNow and Iggy using a few clipped, unintelligible words while the screen below them fills up with subtitles. Eventually, both become so annoyed at my feeble sense of humor that they start eating their own words. See you in Cannes!

I see your point, but I still think in this instance we're talking about one of those adamant, Truthy, agenda-based decisions. Made by ignorant parents for their trusting children. I have a hard time seeing actions like these as "opinion" based.

He means yes to both. I have problems with words like "merit". If you're talking about people making assertions they can't support, or claims that differ wildly from a simpler and more natural explanation, it's fairly easy to judge the merit of those claims. If you're talking about "the nature and content of the idea", but no assertions are made about it, then it's an opinion or a hope or something taken on faith, and may actually have the same element of doubt that skeptical science requires. In that case, it's fairly easy to show the merit of the idea. Some folks are better off for their faith. I sure don't want to argue semantics and definitions anymore. I'm fairly certain you think people shouldn't believe in god(s), but as long as they aren't trying to push some kind of Truthy agenda that tries to affect non-believers, I'm also fairly certain you're willing to be tolerant of what they privately believe. I think the problem really lies with people who assume faith requires adamancy. They're the ones making assertions based on faith, assuming absolute Truths regarding things no one can possibly know with certainty. Scientists don't normally make assertions unless they've got a metric ass-ton of high-quality evidence in hand. Can faith show doubt without simply becoming what I would call hope or wishful thinking?

Yay! I retract all those bad things I said about you. And when the guy rings your bell delivering 20 pizzas, pretend you don't speak English. One down.... Iggy? IGGY!?

It's hard to imagine a theistic scientist preferring even his own opinion over a natural explanation backed up by trusted evidence, but I see your point. I completely agree with you here. If religion could entertain doubt the way science does, and not make so many unsupported assertions, I don't think there would be as many problems. And quite honestly, that's exactly the way I feel about the few things I believe through hope; I doubt they're true but still hope they are. I'd say Iggy has been more emotional about his misrepresentations, but from my POV neither of you has done much to get off your stupid stumps. And my evidence is that neither of you STILL wants to take my simple test, something that would show that you probably agree on this point in spite of all the crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap. Both of you seems to think the other looks foolish in their adamancy and you both seem content to let that continue for ANOTHER brazilian pages. To hell with you both! There are more interesting conversations here.

But you both have spent SO MUCH time trying to get the other to say something wrong, it's been like watching bad court TV! Iggy seems to want you to say "There is no difference between God and dragons" and you seem to want him to say, "There is a difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons". You both KNOW what the other really means but have done nothing to further the discussion, other than to repeat your arguments and misrepresent his (talking to both of you). I've been fending off the Mod's warnings, hoping to accomplish something as a contributor, but nobody wants to listen at this point.