First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
The truth
Posted 1/16/13 , edited 1/16/13
probably because there was a gaping hole in the reporting of it on mainstream media, a lot of stuff aired as it happened that conflicted the later story and was never shown and that kids from the school said they never heard or saw a gunman. Then again I don't really know why they would set up a massacre like that at a young children's school.
45388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/16/13 , edited 1/16/13
What I noticed in general is that most people don't like honesty. Some perceive honesty as being mean spirited.

I don't like being sugarcoated and I don't like sugarcoating things, which is probably why I don't have many friends. I like people who are blunt, but not those people who spill out every single secrets about their relatives/friends... that's different from being honest... that actually falls into gossiping/backstabbing.

I tell people off, I tell people what's on my mind. If I don't like how they're treating me, I say it. I tell my parents off all the time, specially my dad, on my high school graduation he was picking a fight with me and I told him, "Not only didn't you hold a party for me, why are you picking a fight with me?" and he went silent afterwards.

On the forums, I usually tell people off, like if they can't reply to me in a civil manner, I tell them to not quote me in the future.

The truth is very important to me, I like being truthful and I don't like to pretend to be something that I'm not.

Which is probably why I have a penchant for science, I consider it the absolute truth (including mathematics), for me, science is the only truthful information that is reliable in my life. I don't really like History that much as truth could be twisted and also philosophy (which I don't consider as part of science at all).
7139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

-Vega- wrote:

New Town is a false flag event. The New Town, Sandy Hook and all the other shootings in the past are stage events created by the government to convince Americans that guns are bad and to convinced them to give up their 2nd Amendment. The reason why they want to take your guns away is because they want to massacre us. If we don't have guns, then the tyrannical government that we have will murder us. That is their intent.

I can always handle the truth. Remember people, the truth will set you free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lw3rGzvjvU


Damn you really believe that don't you? I suppose the parents who were waiting outside the school only to hear that their children were murdered, were only actors? Open your eyes! Who knows, the powers that be have been known to instigate events that cause a loss of american lives, but those children WERE killed. That much is true. Have some respect for the people who lost their babies.
7139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

GayAsianBoy ...and also philosophy (which I don't consider as part of science at all).


I have to object to that statement. You see, it was because people were willing to contemplate the meaning of existence, and the properties and qualities of the world around us, that science (and the scientific method) even emerged. Imagine a world where no one bothers to question the meaning behind things, or what possibly can exist beyond our perception of the world. That is a world without science, mathematics, or any of the fields of study you adhere to. Be grateful for philosophy.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

Master_kefka wrote:
Can you demonstrate evolution?
The answer is no, not at this time, and not for a long time.


You are incorrect. Demonstrations of evolution are everywhere in the living world as well as the fossil record. The only reason evolution is considered a theory rather than a law is that cannot be described mathematically, and must be described verbally. The definition of evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population over generations". Evolution can happen randomly (genetic drift, founders effect, bottlenecking, etc) or nonrandomly (natural selection, the sexy son phenomenon, female choice). Evolution has been shown to happen as rapidly as one generation, and the best place to look for rapid evolution is within the human body. We are populated by infectious microbes that are constantly evolving resistance to our immune systems and medicines.

Macroevolution has also been demonstrated repeatedly, using molecular analysis as well as comparative anatomy and physiology. Compare the picture of the raptor skeleton to the pictures of the eagle skeleton and skull. While the eagle is evolved to fly and the raptor was evolved to run, they both share very specific physical characteristics such as the shape of the hind legs and the number of toes, the shape and number of the vertebrae, the shape of the hips and pelvis, and the number of holes in the skull. Note especially the thin bones that held their eyeballs in their sockets. Also, while you can't see this in these images, birds and other theropods (like velociraptors) lack lungs, and instead have hollow bones filled with spongy tissue used for oxygen exchange. This is the coolest thing about birds, other than how delicious they are.


There are extant examples of speciation (the evolution of one species into another) all over as well, such as seagulls and other ring species, California tiger salamanders, canyon tree frogs, and other island populations. There is no question that humans and other hominids shared a (relatively) recent common ancestor with chimpanzees, and that that common ancestor was not identical to either species. Remember that chimpanzees have been evolving to be tree-swingers for as long as we have been evolving to be thinkers and distance walkers. They ended up throwing feces in the rain forest, and we ended up drinking beer and watching anime. Lucky us.

We have no problem demonstrating evolution; it is actually a population that is not evolving that is impossible to find. Your ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution does not mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that you don't know about it.
45388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

wisewolf_alpha wrote:


GayAsianBoy ...and also philosophy (which I don't consider as part of science at all).


I have to object to that statement. You see, it was because people were willing to contemplate the meaning of existence, and the properties and qualities of the world around us, that science (and the scientific method) even emerged. Imagine a world where no one bothers to question the meaning behind things, or what possibly can exist beyond our perception of the world. That is a world without science, mathematics, or any of the fields of study you adhere to. Be grateful for philosophy.


I didn't say philosophy or History isn't important, all I'm saying is that those subjects aren't objective to me, therefore I'm not drawn to it as much as I am to science.

I'm not arguing for argument's sake or trying prove you wrong, but I happen to watch a documentary on Mesopotamians (one of the earliest civilisations of humans) the other day, and in the documentary, they said that it was the Mesopotamians who first started using numbers on money as a way to trade... that is the first record of the use of mathematics and it wasn't inspired by philosophy.

Link to documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v2vRlLL58

I do agree with you, astronomy was largely influenced by philosophy, even modern astronomy is still influenced by the questions, "Why are we here" or "What are humans?". But not all areas of science is influenced by philosophy, take Chemistry for example. That was inspired by Alchemy which came from the greed of people wanting to turn things into gold.
Posted 1/16/13
I prefer the truth.
Rather be sad for a moment then be in a blind happiness.
18206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/13
I like to imagine that when I'm gone, I will reincarnate as an alien in a different planet, just like earth. Only different.
21132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Here
Offline
Posted 1/16/13
Ultimately the Truth is definitely what illuminates us. But in the end its whether or not we can handle the truth once its been revealed is what matters most. Many people cannot handle the truth. Some crack and or fall apart after discovering said truths. Some, are driven to insanity. It may sound extreme but its the truth (no pun intended) for the protection of those specific individuals and also for the protection of those that could become possible victims of weak people such as those, the truth is often covered up or hidden.

Is it right that we as a whole do this?
Who are we to say that we know what's better for others?
Would we our self want the truth hidden from us? *I ask that in regards to those who are in a position to hide the truth from the general public*
806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Charleston, SC
Offline
Posted 1/16/13 , edited 1/16/13
I prefer Facts over Truth. Truths are philosophically debatable and subject to human idioms. Facts are scientific and supportable.

And BIG SPOILER ALERT HERE!!!
The Truth is that Santa Claus is NOT real. The Fact is I spent hundreds on my kids this Christmas and an imaginary fat guy got all the credit.
7281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Vancouver BC
Offline
Posted 1/16/13


Perhaps you should reread my questions in the same context as the other questions that were in the same line, instead of implying an answer to fit your assumptions. What we have are indications. That is to say, we lack absolute proof. Sure there are signs, but reading signs is what holy men do. Abductees have signs too, but were is the proof for any of these?
If science can see so well into the past, I'm still waiting for economic science to catch up to evolutionary science's level.

Do you suggest that only evolution is true and the other answers are incorrect? That could be perceived as narrow minded.

My question also served to prove that no matter how much research is done, there are only a few doing the research, and the rest just believe by faith, believe by status quo, or believe because it sounds reasonable/cool. The same with religion, the same with ufo-stuff.

In general, people place trust in science, or rather in scientists, due to the obvious leaps in technology we have now. But science can only be done with resources. Resources can be controlled. Information is power. Some information would cause those with power to lose it. That information is usually the truth.

If you want my actual opinion, here it is:
Anything that isn't native to earth is automatically an alien, and since a god would not be born from what he creates also places him within that distinction, and could not someone with the ability to create a universe from the smallest boson to the largest expanse of space not also have the ability to guide such a simple thing as DNA (to him) by programming in it the ability to adapt to the situations he's placed it in?

Otherwise if we are a cosmic accident then there is no meaning and no ramifications to any action beyond their consequences. If that be the case, well then.. why so serious? If we nuke ourselves out of existence wouldn't we be fixing the 'mistake' of life in this 'mistake' of a universe that dares to exists in the void?

26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

Master_kefka wrote:

Perhaps you should reread my questions in the same context as the other questions that were in the same line, instead of implying an answer to fit your assumptions. What we have are indications. That is to say, we lack absolute proof. Sure there are signs, but reading signs is what holy men do. Abductees have signs too, but were is the proof for any of these?
If science can see so well into the past, I'm still waiting for economic science to catch up to evolutionary science's level.

Do you suggest that only evolution is true and the other answers are incorrect? That could be perceived as narrow minded.

My question also served to prove that no matter how much research is done, there are only a few doing the research, and the rest just believe by faith, believe by status quo, or believe because it sounds reasonable/cool. The same with religion, the same with ufo-stuff.

In general, people place trust in science, or rather in scientists, due to the obvious leaps in technology we have now. But science can only be done with resources. Resources can be controlled. Information is power. Some information would cause those with power to lose it. That information is usually the truth.

If you want my actual opinion, here it is:
Anything that isn't native to earth is automatically an alien, and since a god would not be born from what he creates also places him within that distinction, and could not someone with the ability to create a universe from the smallest boson to the largest expanse of space not also have the ability to guide such a simple thing as DNA (to him) by programming in it the ability to adapt to the situations he's placed it in?

Otherwise if we are a cosmic accident then there is no meaning and no ramifications to any action beyond their consequences. If that be the case, well then.. why so serious? If we nuke ourselves out of existence wouldn't we be fixing the 'mistake' of life in this 'mistake' of a universe that dares to exists in the void?



Um, huh... okay. You don't seem to understand what science is, or what it does. Science is a way of using predictive modeling and testing that only disproves things, and never actually proves anything (unless a mathematical proof is used, hence natural law vs theory). It is a cyclical process that rotates from predict to test to explain, then back to predict. New data is integrated into reevaluation of the predictive model, which means that the scientific explanation for most observed phenomena is always in flux.

So regarding your first paragraph, we have mounds and mounds and mounds of evidence regarding evolution, speciation, and the beginning of life. All the evidence fits with evolutionary models, and contradicts the non-evolutionary models. In other words, there are facts and not-facts. The evolutionary models use facts to accurately explain past phenomena and accurately predict future phenomena. The non-evolutionary models (ie creationism) use not-facts to inaccurately explain past phenomena and does not predict future phenomena. In other words, the non-evolution models are wrong, for sure. And when there is evidence that contradicts the evolutionary models, then the model is reevaluated to fit the facts.

The other cool thing about science is that it is available to everyone to learn about. You don't have to take my word for anything; please go educate yourself. In fact, scientists are trained to disbelieve any claim without suitable references and peer review. Because opinions are neither, opinions have no place in science or building predictive models.

Also, economic science is science in name only, along with educational science, political science, and social science. Calling an economist a scientist is like calling a dental hygienist a doctor; no matter how you say it, it's just wrong.

Finally, stop getting your ideas about god mixed up with scientific explanations of factual phenomena. You'll only end up using logic to paint yourself into a corner where you have to choose between disbelieving facts or disbelieving god. Steven Colbert explains this in a much funnier way than I can.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson
7281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Vancouver BC
Offline
Posted 1/16/13



Okay. Why so serious?
Does it feel better to teach me what you think I don't know? Although I have to admit I didn't know Colbert was the expert. However while I can follow the link - that content is unavailable to me in Canada.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 1/16/13

Master_kefka wrote:
Okay. Why so serious?
Does it feel better to teach me what you think I don't know? Although I have to admit I didn't know Colbert was the expert. However while I can follow the link - that content is unavailable to me in Canada.


I am a research scientist, so yeah it does feel good to teach you what you don't know. Too bad the link doesn't work. It's to a clip of Colbert's version of "Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that" and other O'Reilly-isms. He has an astrophysicist on the show to explain the working of the tides. Basically he turns Bill O'Reilly's ignorance into a five minute joke that can be summed up with, "ignorance is my proof of God".
10063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 1/16/13
Truth can sometimes be harsh. I personally connect truth with reality (harsh truth of reality). Sometimes, we tend to want to escape from the harshness/boringness/exaustingness etc of reality into various things, for example music/anime. Doing that in my opinion is normal, but should not be overdone to the point where one "lives" more in the escapist world than in reality.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.