|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 18, 2008 11:53:21 GMT
Apparently on 21 December 2012 the Mayan Long Count Calendar marks the end of a 5126-year era, and depending on who's prophesying, we'll have massive catastrophe or a 'change in human consciousness' (assisted by psychedelic drugs). It is the end of the thirteenth B'ak'tun cycle in the long count, which may signal a change in the world order. A change in human consciousness - doesn't sound so bad to me  So is it just a prophesy or is there any evidence behind it? I guess that's what the book is about... |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 18, 2008 15:36:28 GMT
Apparently on 21 December 2012 the Mayan Long Count Calendar marks the end of a 5126-year era, and depending on who's prophesying, we'll have massive catastrophe or a 'change in human consciousness' (assisted by psychedelic drugs). It is the end of the thirteenth B'ak'tun cycle in the long count, which may signal a change in the world order. A change in human consciousness - doesn't sound so bad to me So is it just a prophesy or is there any evidence behind it? I guess that's what the book is about... Of course there's evidence--it happened before and the world...well, it's still here and people still tend towards wastefulness and selfishness. But we have TV and radio now! And the dad-blasted internet. And nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong? Sorry, I'm being snarky, but seriously? The end of the world based on the random calendar of one society? Read "Collapse" by Jarod Diamond to get a better feel for what went wrong with the Mayans. And who decided that the Mayan calendar was somehow right? They all start at some arbitrary point, usually created, then back dated to some earlier made-up point to be year 0 or 1 or whatever. The world didn't end, in any way, in 2000, 1900, 1000 (all Christian based dates, mind you) or at any time based on any calendar. It still won't. The world will end when the sun gets REALLY big and burns it up. But by that time, it won't matter to any living thing anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by giganotoigauana on May 18, 2008 17:19:23 GMT
The World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures by Dougal Dixon. im reading this one right now too. |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 25, 2008 9:06:53 GMT
The Canon - A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science by Natalie Angier. It's a very funny book--in fact, at many points there seem to be too many jokes being aimed at the reader--but despite the infectious tone and the numerous famous experts she quotes, somehow I came out of the chapter on "Thinking Scientifically" less convinced of the validity of the scientific method than I did before I read it *blushes*  *Looks warily at the dozen or so palaeontologists that inhabit the forum*  ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 25, 2008 20:46:08 GMT
The Canon - A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science by Natalie Angier. It's a very funny book--in fact, at many points there seem to be too many jokes being aimed at the reader--but despite the infectious tone and the numerous famous experts she quotes, somehow I came out of the chapter on "Thinking Scientifically" less convinced of the validity of the scientific method than I did before I read it *blushes* *Looks warily at the dozen or so palaeontologists that inhabit the forum* ;D hehe. The best thing about the scientific methodology, is that it does not require you to be convinced for it to work. Unlike, for example, religion. ;D  The probable reason you are 'not convinced' (presuming that the author actually understands the concept and presents it accurately) is because you are a man of faith, not particularly compatible with the scientific methodology. And well you should blush! As one who is not convinced than 1+1=2 should be embarrassed. |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 26, 2008 0:03:53 GMT
The probable reason you are 'not convinced' (presuming that the author actually understands the concept and presents it accurately) is because you are a man of faith, not particularly compatible with the scientific methodology. And well you should blush! As one who is not convinced than 1+1=2 should be embarrassed. Hey!   Hmph, I'll remember that when they finally refute the feathered dinosaur hypothesis ;D 'Credo quia absurdum.' "I believe it, because it is absurd." -- Tertullian, attrib. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 26, 2008 5:39:22 GMT
The probable reason you are 'not convinced' (presuming that the author actually understands the concept and presents it accurately) is because you are a man of faith, not particularly compatible with the scientific methodology. And well you should blush! As one who is not convinced than 1+1=2 should be embarrassed. Hey! Hmph, I'll remember that when they finally refute the feathered dinosaur hypothesis ;D 'Credo quia absurdum.' "I believe it, because it is absurd." -- Tertullian, attrib. ;D New version--it is absurd, because you believe it unquestionably. And hey, if by refute the hypothesis, you mean provide actual repeatable evidence (as opposed to unsupported bluster, which is sadly repeatable anyway) that ALL of the feather fossils that exist are not in fact feathers, then guess what? Every good scientist would rethink what they understand to be true based on the evidence that exists. That's how science works. There are no conventions (or should we refer to them as Nicaean Councils of Science?) that get a bunch of people in tall hats together, who then decide dogma. Until they change it. Again. Good, well supported hypotheses stand the test of time, bad ones fall by the way side; more importantly, the research done in the attempts to falsify both can be more compelling than the theories themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 26, 2008 10:10:11 GMT
The probable reason you are 'not convinced' (presuming that the author actually understands the concept and presents it accurately) is because you are a man of faith, not particularly compatible with the scientific methodology. And well you should blush! As one who is not convinced than 1+1=2 should be embarrassed. Hey! Hmph, I'll remember that when they finally refute the feathered dinosaur hypothesis ;D 'Credo quia absurdum.' "I believe it, because it is absurd." -- Tertullian, attrib. ;D But I'm not saying that feathered dinosaurs are as certain as 1+1=2 (although it's pretty close to that). I'm saying that the scientific methodology is as reliable as 1+1=2. Consider 1+1 as the evidence and 2 as the resulting scientific consensus. As the evidence changes, or as new discoveries come to light, the equation changes and so does the consensus change: 1+2=3. Science is self correcting and has nothing to do with belief in the conclusions. On a side note, It is interesting that you did not deny that faith contributes/ is the sole cause for your rejection of science in this case. ;D More proof that faith is the enemy of reason?  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 26, 2008 10:12:43 GMT
Sbell, we should become a tag team  The 'EVILUTIONISTS'! |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 26, 2008 14:56:08 GMT
Sbell, we should become a tag team The 'EVILUTIONISTS'! I am on board. We shall derail the non-rational among us at all times. Plus we are in far different time zones, so there should always be at least one of us to seek out and defeat foolishness and dogma. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 26, 2008 23:04:39 GMT
if 1 eats 1 then 1 + 1 = 1
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 26, 2008 23:23:55 GMT
if 1 eats 1 then 1 + 1 = 1 ;D |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 27, 2008 5:52:23 GMT
Heh, I was in the bookstore and browsed through a few pages of I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges. I wanted to buy it, but at $28 for a diminutive book that I could finish within half an hour it's not worth it (I'll wait till it becomes a certified bestseller and I can get a 40% discount ;D ) Essentially he says that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al are "new atheists" who are just as fundamentalist as their "Christian fundamentalist" neocon counterparts, with an exaggerated faith in the capacity of reason to explain the world and resolve humanity's problems. He even takes a swipe at Edmund Wilson.
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 27, 2008 5:53:53 GMT
*Has a feeling I will soon be blackballed by Dinotoyforum* ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 27, 2008 10:27:25 GMT
*Has a feeling I will soon be blackballed by Dinotoyforum* ;D Not at all. People are free to believe what you wish, even if it is wrong. The 'atheism and science are just another faith' argument is one that is very appealing to the religious because it makes faith universal by default, and everyone is equal (in effect, scientists are brought down to the same level as a religious fundy). Unfortunately its a ridiculous notion for any thinking human being. "If atheism is my faith", as the saying goes, "then not playing basketball in my hobby". Do you believe in flying pink unicorns, which fart rainbows? No? wow your faith is strong. I won't labour the point. On to science. Science delivers the goods. Is it faith that keeps an aeroplane in the air? "If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science". - Carl Sagan. I won't labour the point. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 27, 2008 14:45:54 GMT
Heh, I was in the bookstore and browsed through a few pages of I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges. I wanted to buy it, but at $28 for a diminutive book that I could finish within half an hour it's not worth it (I'll wait till it becomes a certified bestseller and I can get a 40% discount ;D ) Essentially he says that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al are "new atheists" who are just as fundamentalist as their "Christian fundamentalist" neocon counterparts, with an exaggerated faith in the capacity of reason to explain the world and resolve humanity's problems. He even takes a swipe at Edmund Wilson. Yup, better to use a book of myths written long after some guy lived, complete with made up and incorporated-from-other-religion stuff to solve those problems. One thing's for sure--it would be nice if the Westboro Atheists would leave the military funerals alone. And those Atheist jihadists would stop blowing up people that are striving for democracy (regardless of how misguided the methodology). This is the last I'll say about this, but I won't stand by and see someone pretend that religious righteousness is on par with common sense and reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 27, 2008 15:05:02 GMT
Heh, I was in the bookstore and browsed through a few pages of I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges. I wanted to buy it, but at $28 for a diminutive book that I could finish within half an hour it's not worth it (I'll wait till it becomes a certified bestseller and I can get a 40% discount ;D ) Essentially he says that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al are "new atheists" who are just as fundamentalist as their "Christian fundamentalist" neocon counterparts, with an exaggerated faith in the capacity of reason to explain the world and resolve humanity's problems. He even takes a swipe at Edmund Wilson. Yup, better to use a book of myths written long after some guy lived, complete with made up and incorporated-from-other-religion stuff to solve those problems. One thing's for sure--it would be nice if the Westboro Atheists would leave the military funerals alone. And those Atheist jihadists would stop blowing up people that are striving for democracy (regardless of how misguided the methodology). This is the last I'll say about this, but I won't stand by and see someone pretend that religious righteousness is on par with common sense and reason. grrr! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on May 27, 2008 20:21:39 GMT
""The knowledge of external nature, and the sciences which that knowledge requires or includes, are not the great or the frequent business of the human mind. Whether we provide for action or conversation, whether we wish to be useful or pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and moral knowledge of right and wrong . . . we are perpetually moralists, but we are geometricians only by chance. Our intercourse with intellectual nature is necessary; our speculations upon matter are voluntary and at leisure." Samuel Johnson, Lives of the Poets |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 27, 2008 20:47:51 GMT
""The knowledge of external nature, and the sciences which that knowledge requires or includes, are not the great or the frequent business of the human mind. Whether we provide for action or conversation, whether we wish to be useful or pleasing, the first requisite is the religious and moral knowledge of right and wrong . . . we are perpetually moralists, but we are geometricians only by chance. Our intercourse with intellectual nature is necessary; our speculations upon matter are voluntary and at leisure." Samuel Johnson, Lives of the Poets As tempting as it is, I'm not getting drawn into this. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on May 27, 2008 22:17:57 GMT
|
|
;D
Hmph, I'll remember that when they finally refute the feathered dinosaur hypothesis ;D
