Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

lol...you always think SU is being unfairly maligned. In your constant attempts of trying to be open minded and buddy buddy with the "intellectuals" on here...for fear of driving them away or offending them,,,you do realize it actually is okay to be consistent and call them on the same crap they pull that the people you refer to as the "Mullahs" pull?

By the way...we literally have dozens and dozens (if not hundreds) of posts by SU PROVING that he's a bitter and that he's also an apostate, so that right there automatically and deservedly puts his sincerity in question when debating anything of the Mormon Faith.... so what BDB said was an correct statement. Just because it might come off or sound a little harsh, doesn't make it any less true. Notice she wasn't the ONLY one on here who had an issue with SU either. Some are getting sick of his trolling when it comes to the church and it shows.

He's deliberately created this caricature of himself. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing when he gets or is trying to get peoples feathers on here ruffled up, but if you guys wanna fall for it and be his little shield from the crticism he has earned receiving then so be it. That's the safe way for you I guess.

First of all, if you think I always take SU's side, you just haven't been paying attention.

Second, if I were you I would be very careful about promoting an idea that we should judge everything someone says based on their past behavior.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

... you wise old guys ...

Um.... Thanks.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

First of all, if you think I always take SU's side, you just haven't been paying attention.

Second, if I were you I would be very careful about promoting an idea that we should judge everything someone says based on their past behavior.

I didn't say you always TAKE his side....but it is a fair statement to say that you think always think he's unfairly maligned. TWO different things.

And with your round about way of saying something in regards to your opinions about my past behavior of telling it like it is....lol....just come out and say it. I know you don't like me anyway because of my past posts, and my tendency to call people on their B.S. and ulterior motives when I see them and I could care less if you like that or not....the whole point of this was pointing out your lack of consistency. Why the lack of consistency? Because the other guys express themselves in what you see as being more fluent and intelligent?

You've NO problem agreeing with and taking the side of people you refer to as "mullahs" to task when they pull the EXACT same kind of crap that SU does all the time,,,but I NEVER see you calling him on it. I've seen you call Fus on it before...I'll give you credit for that. Heck,,,even Mike calls him on it ALL the time. I can see where a friendship or liking for someone would stunt your ability to be consistent and call them on the carpet...but at least TRY...otherwise it becomes very obvious.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I didn't say you always TAKE his side....but it is a fair statement to say that you think always think he's unfairly maligned. TWO different things.

Either way. You are still wrong.

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And with your round about way of saying something in regards to your opinions about my past behavior of telling it like it is....lol....just come out and say it.

?? I thought I did.

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I know you don't like me anyway because of my past posts, and my tendency to call people on their B.S. and ulterior motives when I see them and I could care less if you like that or not....the whole point of this was pointing out your lack of consistency. Why the lack of consistency? Because the other guys express themselves in what you see as being more fluent and intelligent?

You've NO problem agreeing with and taking the side of people you refer to as "mullahs" to task when they pull the EXACT same kind of crap that SU does all the time,,,but I NEVER see you calling him on it. I've seen you call Fus on it before...I'll give you credit for that. Heck,,,even Mike calls him on it ALL the time. I can see where a friendship or liking for someone would stunt your ability to be consistent and call them on the carpet...but at least TRY...otherwise it becomes very obvious.

Like I said, you obviously haven't been paying attention. But I will resist the temptation to supply links because then you will invariably start arguing scale and frequency and I don't have the time or interest to engage in that debate. You are welcome to carry on with your stereotypical vitriol, but I ceased worrying about your opinion of me ages ago. You are wasting your time.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Look creekster, as I'm sure you know, religious people saying scientists engage in a faith of their own is tired and meaningless cant. Faith is not part of scientists' lexicon, not part of their dicipline. It's tiresome to see religious people force feeding that word to them. Sceintists most emphatically reject the notion that as scientists they rely on faith, and they have plenty of self-awarenes and in terms of their work they are not charlatans. Scientific study has plenty of fruits to show for itself.

Yes, scientific hypotheses and theories are fraught with uncertainties. That is what science is all about. But scientists do not respond to uncertainty with faith in any shape or form. People who claim that are invariably not scientists (we have two real scietists here that I know of and neither would claim that scientists employ a kind of religious-like faith) and are either uninformed or pushing an agenda.

Scientists respond to uncertainty by investigating phenomena and acquiring new kowledge through a rigorous, highly disciplined methodology involving , among other things, gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. Also by these techniques previous data is corrected and integrated.

It's not faith goddamnit. It just isn't. Scientists don't think it is. So why do religious people try tell them it is? Because those who do it ultimately don't place a high intrinsic value on truth. And that's what pisses me off in the final analysis.

Sorry, but you missed the point. I meant your conclusion in the post, which was to discount whatever anyone such as BFM says once they say scientists rely on faith, is shortsighted. You and i may disagree with BFM's assertion, but it is rather petulant, in my mind, to say that you will now discount whatever he may say thereafter.

Let me elaborate: You said that BFM lost all credibility because he invoked a science as faith argument. Thats a bit silly and especially here, where I think BFM has had a rather long history of thoughtful and considerate posts. Of course, you really didn't mean it, you really just wanted to throw out some hyperbole to emphasize just how insistent you really are about the point, but instead all you managed to do was harden everyone's positions and polarize the discussion. IS science based on faith? I don't think so, although it may be acurate to analogize some aspects of the scientific process to a faith like approach. Is it fruitful to jumpo and down and scream at someone that disagrees with you? Very, very rarely.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Sorry, but you missed the point. I meant your CONCLUSION, which was to discount whatever anyone such as BFM says once they say scientists rely on faith, is shortsighted. MAybre you and i disagree with BFM's assertion, but it is rather petulant, in my mind, to say that you will now discount whatever he may say thereafter.

Maybe you're right.

I should have said there are three scientists here. I forgot about Brian.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

IS science based on faith? I don't think so, although it may be acurate to analogize some aspects of the scientific process to a faith like approach.

You probably saw fit to edit your post when I replied simply that you might be right.

I still agree with it except for the above. I don't agree it's fruitful. Admittedly this is a pet peeve of mine but I think the scientists themselves are on my side.

I meant he lost all credibility in arguing this issue we were discussing. In some ways I see statements like science is faith as a sign that this person takes a view of the world that is 90 degrees to mine and there's no use discussing the issue with him. Maybe I'm too quick to judge but this is a pet peeve, like I say.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Either way. You are still wrong.



?? I thought I did.



Like I said, you obviously haven't been paying attention. But I will resist the temptation to supply links because then you will invariably start arguing scale and frequency and I don't have the time or interest to engage in that debate. You are welcome to carry on with your stereotypical vitriol, but I ceased worrying about your opinion of me ages ago. You are wasting your time.

Either way I'm still wrong?..now that's an argument with substance. lol...I always knew you had a good Mullah-ish impersonation in you somewhere.

Okay, okay...no more sarcasm. In any event,,I think you're a good egg and I value most of what you offer and say on here, even if I do disagree with your biased inconsistency towards the "intellectuals", specifically SU, that I've already pointed out.

[BigFatMeanie]

On what irritated me about SU:
The main thing that set me off was the fact that BDB simply expressed some level skepticism about RCD which SU then turned into an underhanded dig at religion/creationism/faith, etc. As I already pointed out, RCD becomes less reliable the older the timeframes in question go back. To ask questions or express some skepticism about its accuracy in a given situation is perfectly logical and valid; however, SU, as he admitted in later posts, assumes that anyone who questions must have a religious agenda that they are trying to promote. I generally consider myself as having thick skin when it comes to religion/mormonism; however, it does seem like SU manages to turn every single topic on the board into some type of dig at religion.

I don't know SU personally - he may be a very nice guy and a fun guy to hang out with; however, his board persona irritates me - largely because of the repetition, the incessant drum beat of digs/criticism/scoffing/arrogance/disrespect. Everyone knows by now that SU thinks religious people are delusional or simply ignorant rubes - why bring it up ad-nauseum? It doesn't bother me that SU thinks those things (NonSequiter probably thinks the same things but he doesn't bother me in the least). What bothers me is that SU simply won't shut up about it.

All that being said, the thing that irritates me the most about SU is that I let him irritate me. I shouldn't have lost my temper last night. I apologize for attacking SU personally.

On faith in science:
I suppose it helps to define ones terms. The definitions of the term faith are varied indeed as a simple google query for "define:faith" will show. They range from narrow, specifically-religious definitions such as: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" to more broad definitions such as "complete confidence in a person or plan" or "belief in the truth of an idea". I will agree that scientists don't exercise faith if one uses the narrow religious definition of the term; however, I believe an argument can indeed be made when using a broader definition of the term. My operative definition of the term is generally "a belief in something that I can't prove or that I don't know for certainty". Is it logical to believe the earth is 250M years old? Absolutely. Is there credible data to support this belief? Yes. Does this data-backed, logical, supported belief make more sense than any other available theory, supernatural or otherwise? Yes. Does anyone know for certainty? Not unless they were around 250M years ago. To me, that is faith.

On making an argument:
If you don't agree with me about faith (in science or otherwise) then make an argument - define your terms, make a supposition and support it, reason it out with me. If all you can contribute is to simply say "Nope, you're wrong" then why even bother posting? Worse than that is to start thinking along the lines of: "I've met a lot of people like you and I am going to classify you in a certain way. Because you fall into that classification I deem you unworthy of my time in discussion. If you don't immediately accept what I'm saying then I'm simply going to write you off".

If you feel like you don't have the time/energy/patience/desire to refute an argument you don't agree with, would it not be better to not say anything at all? Or perhaps say "I would love to discuss this with you - to challenge your assertion; unfortunately, I haven't the time". Publicly writing someone off because they make an argument you don't agree with when you are not willing to take the time and effort to discuss it with them is, in my opinion, cowardly.

[Cali Coug]

I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread, so perhaps this has already been discussed. I think the find in the article is very interesting. I would ask only one question about an assumption I find in the article:

If the chicken they found was indeed of a Polynesian ancestry, does that necessarily mean it was brought here by Polynesians? Couldn't Polynesian chickens have been traded with Africans, Asians, etc. who could have then brought it here? I don't know that it matters much to the premise of the article, which is that someone came here before Columbus.