I guess the problem would be the person who believes the earth is flat and discounts all the data you provide to show him it is round. Yeah, it's his belief, but he certainly is not being honest with his rebuttals.

Sorry. I did not mean to be nitpicking. I may come across as too forceful at times, but my occupation doesn’t allow for unsubstantiated opinion. I need facts and accuracy in my line of work. Many people might live and operate in a different environment.

I was trying to outline the level of knowledge as it exists today. I find that statements are made with much outdated or erroneous information. Why is it bad form to correct these errors? Why do you take offense when the accuracy is questioned? I have little or no emotion in this discussion. Any reading into my comments that lead you to feel differently is incorrect. I try to speak and write clearly and accurately. Is that a fault now? I don't sugar coat my answers to outright lies. Is that required to be civil? What about honesty?

People who know me will be the first to tell you of my compassion and empathy. But I can achieve that without being required to accept inaccuracies. I learn new things every day. I have to reset my knowledge base every day. This is the way I live. Others are content to use old, outdated information, I am not. Why should I not correct these errors? Why should I acquiesce to ignorance?

If one wants to make a statement, why should one not expect to defend it in a logical manner? I am opposed to all of the emotional claptrap espoused as being relevant. Or that those opinions should be respected. Only informed, educated, experienced opinions have any validity. The rest are just like bellybuttons. Everyone has one, it’s nothing special.

I've never seen informed, educated or experienced bellybuttons. So I won't complain about your "outie" if you don't poke fun at my "innie". An opinion, no matter how mis-informed or confused is still that -- an opinion. As you said, they're like belly buttons.

Scientific results and claims within Physics, chemistry, and the physical sciences require rigerous proof. So we all gang up on the guy who joins the BBS claiming that putting holes in your airbox is worth 50 HP. Because the 50 HP just ain't there!

Claims in Archeology, History and stuff like that all need to at least withstand a reasonable level of supporting evidence, but since we can't revive the dead or relive specific moments in time (yet!), there will always be an element of doubt (or faith) involved. So it always helps to respect that. BTW, I have to admit that one of the most cantankerous (sp?) fields of study is that of Biblical Archeology (basically, normal archeological work done in the Lebanon/Israel/Sinai area -- with a mine-field of politics and agendas on all sides). It's a valid and respected field of scientific study, but rife with emotional bickering.

Claims in philosophy and theology need to at least stand up to scruitany of internal consistancy. That is because these fields of study depend on this consistancy to hold together. But once again, the application of these studies in the real world implies a jump from the mental to the physical reality -- and they are two different realms which do not map against well each other. As a result I would expect people to be respectful of those who do try to make that jump. Universities routinely award PhD's in these fields, so they are not complete bunk, and do justify serious study.

Those are my standards (aka: $0.02). You may or may not agree with them, but let's not take anyone's head off.
SmileWavy

Whoa fellows! What inaccurate statement did I refute that have set you guys off? Is someone claiming we don’t have 10,000 years or written history? Written during the time periods in question, not afterwards. If so, where is your evidence? If not, what is the problem?

The reason Biblical Archeology is full of emotion is because people are trying to "prove" their beliefs. Not because, standard scientific methods create the emotion diatribes.

You can get degrees in any conceivable subject matter. That does not mean they are all equally valid. A degree in theology from a religious school does not have the same standards applied to it as a degree in Anthropology concerning Comparative Religions from a non-religious university. If you equate those two as equal, then you have other agendas.

I said:
Only informed, educated, experienced opinions have any validity. The rest are just like bellybuttons. Everyone has one, it’s nothing special.

John replied:
I've never seen informed, educated or experienced bellybuttons.



Wow John, what kind of nonsense rebuttal is this? The next time you need a second medical opinion for a major surgery, let me know who you ask, OK?

You guys are still bringing emotion into something that does not require it to discuss civilly. What insulting thing have I said; other to call people on their lies or unsupported opinions offered as fact?

There is more to life than facts and science. Where does art fit in your narrow "informed, educated, expeienced opinions" world?

Sorry man, I agree with a lot of what you say, but imho you go way too far. I think that boiling the world down to the measurable is selling life, humanity, and the collective consciousness short.

Shakespeare had it dead on:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

The world is magic. The extent is up to the individual, but I'm speaking as a very well trained scientist. Lighten up, lose the formulas for a day and take a deep breathe...

OK. Maybe a weak attempt at levity. When it comes to first or second opinions for medical purposes, I'll judge the opionion based on person (and their reputation), as well as if it all makes sense to me. I may even have to take someone's opinion on faith (gasp!) if it is really unusual situation. A Christian Scientist (no comment) may chose to take a different set of opinions then me. We both will then have to live or die on our choices. But they are our opinions and decisions at the end of the day that prompted our particular outcome.

From a logic perspective, nothing is certain. The outcome of the surgery may turn out bad in spite of making the "right" decision, or may turn out good in spite of making the "wrong" decision. Nothing in life is that predictable or exact when you get down to it. It's not making the "right" or "wrong" decisions that matters in the end, but if you and I made a positive impact on the world in some fashion that will matter. Did we make someone's life a little bit better when we had the chance, or did we make someone's life a living hell when we had a chance. This is what will matter, wether you believe that will be judged or not.

Just my $0.02 again.

Anyone making such statements is a biased, closed minded person and will never convince anyone of anything.

Think about it. Someday you might mature enough to understand the real world.

John, who ever said differently? I seek the best opinions I can get when I cannot use facts. What does that have to do with requesting people to be accurate and label unsupported statements as opinions not statements of fact? That is my only issue. Want to voice an opinion? Have at it, but label it as opinion, not fact. Why should anyone be upset when their opinion is questioned or evidence is supplied that indicates that said opinion is unsupportable? And if one wants to continue to offer unsubstantiated opinion as fact, then that is a falsehood at best, if not an outright lie to serve their agenda. Why should I let that slide? To what purpose?

You wrote:
“From a logic perspective, nothing is certain.”

Sorry John, I do not get this relationship between certainty and logic. Logic does not predict certainty. Logic demands a level of supportable evidence to reach a particular conclusion.

Snowman really! Are you saying that there is no religious based ignorence in the world? If so, who is the closed minded one?

I don't support anyone's sacred cows. If you can't stand the application of logic, critical thinking and peer-review results directed towards your beliefs, than maybe your backing the wrong horse. That's not my fault.

I'm ALWAYS willing to change my beliefs. Just show me the verifiable, repeatable evidence. If you don't have that, then you only have unsupportable opinion; Common as dirt and not worth much.

My comment went TOTALLY over your head. Someday you will become wise enough to understand. I won't wait up for you to come up to speed.

Your comment stated I was closedminded because of my statement concerning religious based ignorance. Answer the question I posed. Your comment is as insulting as anything I've been accused of.

And please don't think that you have a lock on wisdom or even understand what it is.

I guess my point was a little muddled, but then what isn't on this thread? If we were arguing orbital mechanics, there would be one level of proof required. But the reality is that this particular thread teeters somewhere between the softer sciences (Archeology and such as that) and Theology (self evident). To be honest, it's hard to say if someone's answer is in one realm or another. So hopefully we can all be fairly patient and try to talk through the issues. That's the interesting part. While you may feel that someone's explanation falls short of fully scientific, they may be trying to make their point theologically (also an acceptable discipline). Even Harvard and Yale offer degrees in Theology.

At the end of the day, what we say on this thread will have little to no impact on creation, or the world as a whole. There are other things that we do in our life that will matter more. I'm all with you that JW's, Fundimentalists or some other religious group should stop bludgening people with their beliefs. If you or someone else don't want to convert, beating someone over the head with a particular view point isn't going to change their mind. The same applies to the athiest view. You may think that you're saving the world from religious intolerance or something, but if you have to beat the other person over the head with your point, or shove it in their faces, chances are you're not making it.

This is where I go back to the dead horse thing... :rolleyes:

I go to work and miss all the fun.:D


Call lies if you like, but evolution is UNPROVEN and carbon dating is unreliable.


Good to be back...

But at least admit that the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are significantly different than most mainstream Christian religions.

KT good to have you back!

your fun to debate with!

Of course, that's a given. :)

Remember my list...?

No other religion fits.


KT

Nostatic, when did I ever say you can't have art (I love and create art) or have an opinion or a belief? Never. I never said it, nor do I think it.

Let me state my position clearly. I do not accept as fact what cannot be peer reviewed, verified and tested. These are facts. Please do not expect me to accept unsupported claims or statements or opinion as fact. They just aren’t so.

I have opinions, beliefs and stories that I like a lot. But these are not facts. I love people, music, animals, travel, hiking and climbing, boating, machinery of all types, books of all types and knowledge. My life is as open as the universe in all its wonders. It is not narrow or limited. My interests are much broader than most of the people I've met all over the world. I try to model myself after a renaissance man. I try to learn about everything I run across in my life. How many people do you know who try to do that? Narrow and limited?; sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I don't get the idea, that if you want to have "facts" verifiable, your life is somehow lesser for it. Can you expand on this line of reasoning?

Why do you put so much "faith" in your "peer review"?

We're all just men right?



KT

No, you just seem to dismiss anything that is not a "fact" according to your peer-reviewed architecture. I guess I see more shades of gray. To me, everything is not quite so clear-cut. I know from my experience in the lab that much of my molecular biology work was a mix of art and science.

My "box" of facts is kinda leaky I guess...

Nostatic,
I think our differences are imagined than real. My world is full of things that I cannot verify. I deal in every shade of gray there is. I often must make my best choice with insufficent facts. I have to then use every thing I can lay my hands on to try to make a decision.

But I don't call or accept as facts what cannot be tested and verified.

Why would anyone want to call the unverfied a "fact", unless they have a agenda to mislead.