[Perkwunos]

They probably have never heard of the golden ratio.

Your claim that mathematicians who have typically undergone an extensive education from undergraduate to graduate to postgraduate have never heard of one of the most well-known constants in all of history strains credulity.

Perhaps you'd like to offer some kind of justification for it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/

...and deflecting won't help you.

[Drlee]

Science and religion do not contradict each other, despite what you may want to believe. It's only when people want religious dogma to take precedent, does conflict arise(because doing so is utterly stupid).

Correct on both points. Religious people who wish to argue against science using Bible verses are their own worst enemy.

Defunding science is a very bad thing, indeed, and funding military isn't going to balance that out in ANY way, unless you think that a cure for cancer is less important than a new type of missile.

Also true. Please note that our military is so strong BECAUSE our science is stronger than everyone else.

But remember. Trump is only going after "science" as a means to give his fellow rich folks more tax breaks.

[Hindsite]

Your claim that mathematicians who have typically undergone an extensive education from undergraduate to graduate to postgraduate have never heard of one of the most well-known constants in all of history strains credulity.

Perhaps you'd like to offer some kind of justification for it.



...and deflecting won't help you.

What I mean is that many of those that don't believe in God probably never heard of it being associated with nature and evidence of God's mathematical design in creation. Surely, they must have been taught the important constants, but not this:

Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, And The Divine Proportion In God's Creation - their very presence virtually everywhere and in everything argues against their having occurred by blind chance or evolutionary processes. The only rational conclusion is that the Creator of the universe is a personal, intelligent Being, who created these things as a visible fingerprint of His invisible, yet personal existence.

http://www.icr.org/article/shapes-numbe ... -gods-cre/

[Perkwunos]

What I mean is that many of those that don't believe in God probably never heard of it being associated with nature and evidence of God's mathematical design in creation. Surely, they must have been taught the important constants, but not this:

Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, And The Divine Proportion In God's Creation - their very presence virtually everywhere and in everything argues against their having occurred by blind chance or evolutionary processes. The only rational conclusion is that the Creator of the universe is a personal, intelligent Being, who created these things as a visible fingerprint of His invisible, yet personal existence.

http://www.icr.org/article/shapes-numbe ... -gods-cre/

Or maybe articles from ICR just typically aren't very convincing for those with real knowledge of the subject matter.

[Drlee]

The only rational conclusion is that the Creator of the universe is a personal, intelligent Being, who created these things as a visible fingerprint of His invisible, yet personal existence.

The God who gave us such a simple road map to faith surely does not need to prove Himself scientifically. Indeed, if he wanted to prove himself he would just show up and embarrass some televangelists..

If he showed up "in person" and told us all his mind in detail, he would create a seriously boring place for us to wait for the next boring place. Take away the bottom and there is no top. Take away the lows and there are no highs. God is there waiting for us through faith. In the meantime he gives us a far more exciting world to live in by giving us a mystery to solve. Why does God allow disease and other bad things? He doesn't. We do. He gives us the means to fight disease and poverty. It is conservatives who block him.

[Godstud]

Good post, Drlee. That reminds me a lot of this:

A man was trapped in his house during a flood. He began praying to God to rescue him. He had a vision in his head of God’s hand reaching down from heaven and lifting him to safety. The water started to rise in his house. His neighbour urged him to leave and offered him a ride to safety. The man yelled back, “I am waiting for God to save me.” The neighbour drove off in his pick-up truck.

The man continued to pray and hold on to his vision. As the water began rising in his house, he had to climb up to the roof. A boat came by with some people heading for safe ground. They yelled at the man to grab a rope they were ready to throw and take him to safety. He told them that he was waiting for God to save him. They shook their heads and moved on.

The man continued to pray, believing with all his heart that he would be saved by God. The flood waters continued to rise. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over a loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder and take him off the roof. The man waved the helicopter away, shouting back that he was waiting for God to save him. The helicopter left. The flooding water came over the roof and caught him up and swept him away. He drowned.

When he reached heaven and asked, “God, why did you not save me? I believed in you with all my heart. Why did you let me drown?” God replied, “I sent you a pick-up truck, a boat and a helicopter and you refused all of them. What else could I possibly do for you?”

[Hindsite]

The God who gave us such a simple road map to faith surely does not need to prove Himself scientifically. Indeed, if he wanted to prove himself he would just show up and embarrass some televangelists..

If he showed up "in person" and told us all his mind in detail, he would create a seriously boring place for us to wait for the next boring place. Take away the bottom and there is no top. Take away the lows and there are no highs. God is there waiting for us through faith. In the meantime he gives us a far more exciting world to live in by giving us a mystery to solve. Why does God allow disease and other bad things? He doesn't. We do. He gives us the means to fight disease and poverty. It is conservatives who block him.

I don't see why you only accuse conservatives of blocking the Lord. It seems obvious from both scripture and everyday life that all humans have blocked Him. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, even you, Driee.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Pants-of-dog]

Correct on both points. Religious people who wish to argue against science using Bible verses are their own worst enemy.

Yes. They do all the work needed to show how their arguments are baseless.

Also true. Please note that our military is so strong BECAUSE our science is stronger than everyone else.

...and your science is strong because of the military. NASA and nuclear energy are the two most obvious examples of this.

But remember. Trump is only going after "science" as a means to give his fellow rich folks more tax breaks.

I would argue that that is one of his reasons, but he has many more.

[Hindsite]

Yes. They do all the work needed to show how their arguments are baseless.

...and your science is strong because of the military. NASA and nuclear energy are the two most obvious examples of this.

I would argue that that is one of his reasons, but he has many more.

I would argue that too much tax payer dollars are wasted on crazy so-called science studies.

Yale University was awarded a grant for just shy of $385,000 to study duck genitalia and its plasticity. Why? It helped us better understand evolution.

Seven hundred thousand dollars — that’s how much grant money researchers at the University of New Hampshire received a few years back to study cow gas.

The College of Charleston in South Carolina received more than half a million dollars in grant money to study the difference in endurance between healthy shrimp and those that were exposed to various illnesses and bacteria.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-fina ... ?a=viewall

The U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research spent $300,000 on a study that concluded the first bird on Earth probably had black feathers.

The Department of Health and Human Services provided an $800,000 subsidy to build and IHop in Washington, D.C.

The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to study why “three-quarters” of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.

The U.S. government spent $505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs” last year.

NASA spends close to $1 million per year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.

https://commercialobserver.com/2013/10/ ... -money-on/

A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

$615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

A professor at Stanford University received $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.

The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions.”

The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos.

The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont got $150,000 from the federal government to construct a “critter crossing”. Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of “thousands” of migrating salamanders are now being saved.

In California, one park received $440,000 in federal funds to perform “green energy upgrades” on a building that has not been used for a decade.

The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo over $600,000 so that they could develop an online video game called “Wolfquest”.

Almost unbelievably, the National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... g-money-on

[Perkwunos]

I would argue that too much tax payer dollars are wasted on crazy so-called science studies.

Why should someone whose only interest in science is an incredibly flimsy veneer for religious proselytization decide which studies are or aren't a good idea

[Pants-of-dog]

Yale University was awarded a grant for just shy of $385,000 to study duck genitalia and its plasticity. Why? It helped us better understand evolution.

Seven hundred thousand dollars — that’s how much grant money researchers at the University of New Hampshire received a few years back to study cow gas.

The College of Charleston in South Carolina received more than half a million dollars in grant money to study the difference in endurance between healthy shrimp and those that were exposed to various illnesses and bacteria.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-fina ... ?a=viewall

The study of evolution and climate change, such as in these examples, is fundamental to our understanding of our ecological relationship to the rest of the natural environment. Since our continued survival on this planet relies on this understanding, 1.6 million is actually quite a bargain.

The U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research spent $300,000 on a study that concluded the first bird on Earth probably had black feathers.

The Department of Health and Human Services provided an $800,000 subsidy to build and IHop in Washington, D.C.

The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to study why “three-quarters” of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.

The U.S. government spent $505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs” last year.

NASA spends close to $1 million per year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.

https://commercialobserver.com/2013/10/ ... -money-on/

The armed forces spend a stupid amount of money on stupid things. They also spend a stupid amount of money on smart things. The first statement does not disprove or contradict the second. Without further information, I cannot say which describes the bird colour study.

Subsidies to private companies are not relevant to a discussion on the financial merits of scientific studies.

The US desperately needs to figure out why so many of you are overweight regardless of sexual orientation.

Any money spent on getting humans living on other planets is well spent when we consider the long term survival of the species.

A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

$615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

A professor at Stanford University received $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.

The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions.”

The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos.

The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont got $150,000 from the federal government to construct a “critter crossing”. Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of “thousands” of migrating salamanders are now being saved.

In California, one park received $440,000 in federal funds to perform “green energy upgrades” on a building that has not been used for a decade.

The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo over $600,000 so that they could develop an online video game called “Wolfquest”.

Almost unbelievably, the National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... g-money-on

All of these have economic benefits (such as the first and fourth examples), benefits in terms of understanding climate change (the second example), historical benefits (the third and fifth examples), medical or social science benefits (examples number six and eleven), cultural benefits (the third and seventh examples), or ecological benefits (examples eight, nine, and ten).

This is actually far more reasonable than I am accustomed to seeing when it comes to government spending.

[Hindsite]

The study of evolution and climate change, such as in these examples, is fundamental to our understanding of our ecological relationship to the rest of the natural environment. Since our continued survival on this planet relies on this understanding, 1.6 million is actually quite a bargain.

The armed forces spend a stupid amount of money on stupid things. They also spend a stupid amount of money on smart things. The first statement does not disprove or contradict the second. Without further information, I cannot say which describes the bird colour study.

Subsidies to private companies are not relevant to a discussion on the financial merits of scientific studies.

The US desperately needs to figure out why so many of you are overweight regardless of sexual orientation.

Any money spent on getting humans living on other planets is well spent when we consider the long term survival of the species.

All of these have economic benefits (such as the first and fourth examples), benefits in terms of understanding climate change (the second example), historical benefits (the third and fifth examples), medical or social science benefits (examples number six and eleven), cultural benefits (the third and seventh examples), or ecological benefits (examples eight, nine, and ten).

This is actually far more reasonable than I am accustomed to seeing when it comes to government spending.

I have pointed out that there are other people besides me that disagree with you.
So you'll have to accept the budget, regardless. Sorry buddy. You're all out of luck.

[Godstud]

Trump firing 59 missiles, each worth $1 million($59 million), is a much bigger waste of money. The big bomb dropped in Afghanistan, cost the taxpayers $314 million. Money wasted.

I find that funding scientific studies to determine even simple things is at least money spent towards the betterment of education and mankind. Money well spent.

We have to accept the budget, but we don't have to like, nor is the budget justified.

[Hindsite]

Trump firing 59 missiles, each worth $1 million($59 million), is a much bigger waste of money. The big bomb dropped in Afghanistan, cost the taxpayers $314 million. Money wasted.

I find that funding scientific studies to determine even simple things is at least money spent towards the betterment of education and mankind. Money well spent.

We have to accept the budget, but we don't have to like, nor is the budget justified.

I disagree. Those missiles were just taking up space for nothing. It was about time they were put to use to do something, even if it were only to send a strong message to an evil dictator. Anyway, if we need any more, that is more jobs created.

We have already spent more money for education and the betterment of mankind than any other nation. Let's give them a fair chance to catch up. That is the Christian way.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Ter]

The big bomb dropped in Afghanistan, cost the taxpayers $314 million. Money wasted.

Where did you get that figure?
I read that the MOAB bomb costs 16 million.
Money spent killing terrorists is never wasted.

[Decky]

Where did you get that figure?
I read that the MOAB bomb costs 16 million.
Money spent killing terrorists is never wasted.

Every time you flatten people's houses you create terrorists you don't kill them.

[Ter]

Every time you flatten people's houses you create terrorists you don't kill them.

First of all, these were caves and tunnels for the cockroaches to hide in.
Secondly, it is a myth to state that we should leave them alone otherwise we create more terrorists. This is what the apologists want us to believe. The same people that say we should let them into Europe by the millions. No sir. The war of the civilisations has started.
Dear Vlady Putin knows how to deal with vermin. See what he did in Chechnya in 1996 ? They got the message.

[Perkwunos]

Dear Vlady Putin knows how to deal with vermin. See what he did in Chechnya in 1996 ? They got the message.

Not all of them apparently:

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-st-p ... story.html

[Ter]

That terrorist was not Chechen, he was Akbarjon Djalilov, 22, a Russian national born in Kyrgyzstan.
Even so, it is not possible to control 100% of them. My point is that Chechnya has been pacified.

[Perkwunos]

That terrorist was not Chechen, he was Akbarjon Djalilov, 22, a Russian national born in Kyrgyzstan.

OK. I understand that Russia still blames a lot of its current terrorism concerns on Chechnya. Is this accurate?