I trust that if I looked hard enough, I could find the same thing around here. My point is that the inference by the researcher is that a majority of the population holds those views. I think (or at least hope) not.
There will always be the extreme element on either side of any issue, but they don't represent the views of those who live in the massive middle of the bell curve.
Be careful around that third standard deviation Charlie :~)
Frank
Well now Charlie, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen you post. Of course scientists object to people's belief in a god. That happens on a daily basis, among an outspoken segment of the scientific community. You hear all sorts of slanderous comments associated with the beliefs of "religious" people - things like "fear", "irrational", "uneducated", etc. Likewise, Religionists can often do the same. Either camp is equally guilty of the same behaviors and either camp is equally populated with those who don't succumb to that type of behavior. It's not a science vs. religion thing - it's a human nature thing. There are those who can be comfortable with ideas outside of their own beliefs and understandings, and there are those who can't. The former recognizes that they don't and can't know everything, the latter hasn't figured that out yet. Both science and religion can be found fighting within their own little camps. It's the human nature at work - not the issue of science vs. anything else.
Never to be one to pass up an opportunity to get a free dig at the under-educated, Charley again proves he can't have any thoughts of his own and decides to piggy-back onto someone else's post.
As you seem so desperate to join in on an intellectual discussion, allow me to educate you first. History is full of anecdotes of companies unleashing inadequately tested products (thalidomide just to name one of hundreds). Do a little reading on aspertame, saccharine, red-dye number ?? AMC Pacers, hormones in milk, cigarettes were no health risk for decades... the list is endless.
And I am at risk to waste my breath talking to those who worship at the altar of infallible corporations, the worshippers can't hear anything, their heads are shoved THAT far up their asses. Must be nice to go through life denying the existence of corporate greed. Dream on!
(snip)
(snip)
Instead of reflexively chewing on the ankles of your betters you would do better to consider the core of Charlie's argument. For instance, you might try looking at the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, often referred to as, 'the man who fed the world', for an instance of genetic manipulation that has unquestionably benefitted humankind.
It might also be instructive for you to read up on Gregor Mendel, so as to have a sense of the history that Charlie references.
You might further consider this:
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
Go play with your marble countertops, Tom... and if I want an opinion on something from you, I'll ask for it, okay? Oh, and next time you post a link, try to find something that's original and isn't covered in dinosaur shit.
BTW 'benefited only has one 't', o, literary genius!
Comapred to what? Europe as a continent doesn't have any more education than North America as a continent does. I've met some incredibly undereducated Europeans, and some incredibly over-educated ones (just as likely there as here).
How would you measure education, by the way? I have a tendency to consider stupid actions the actions of those with either little sense or little education, or a combination of the two. No group, or area, has a monoply on those two.
As someone who lives amongst the fundamentalists, I guess my point is influenced by their proximity. There are scientists around here, too, of course, but mostly they keep a low profile.
You want a religious fight? Put three Southern Baptists together and get them to discuss theology. Hide the weapons first.
...ecce h*mo...
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
Tom,
Treat the counterman like any other wet fart. Just spray the air and open the windows, in that order.
Good food for thought...
I was going along the "Science to back up my legislation" angle.
That might clear the air, but you'd still be walking around with poopie pants.
RE: Subject
As usual, given enough time, "Nan, na, nan nah", seems appropriate.
There is also a segment that points out that you can't disprove it either.
I'm not choosing a side, but simply stating there are plenty of scientists on either side.
"Religionists" like the AGWists? This doesn't look much like a woodworking post either Charlie.
Most of what has been planted in the West in the past century are hybrids which, by definition, do not reproduce themselves.
There is nothing about GE plants that makes this so. Also seed that is inferior.
No, there is another very good reason. Hybrids do cross-polinate but do not reproduce themselves, rather a mutt that isn't desired. A sterile seed would eliminate this cross-polination.
Are only religionists afraid of science?
ISTR that that has happened with the American Elm. They've found two Dutch Elm resistant trees, though I haven't heard any more for a couple of years.
I'll take a few of those Elm. Thanks.
Make that three.
They wouldn't let him have an eraser.
Tom Watson :
If there were a man who one could call 'the man who fed the world', it would be Fritz Haber. It is said that a full third of the world's population - that's about two billion - are kept alive because of his ammonia production process.
On the other hand he was an asshole who would never have got the Nobel Peace Prize, being the 'father of chemical warfare'. He got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry instead.
But then, if you see which people get the Peace Prize...
You know how the theomarketing scammers go on about how the Big Bang is contrary to the Bible? Well the guy who came up with it was a priest, and not some mail order priest either, a Roman Catholic priest who later became head of the Vatican's Academy of Science. Newton was more interested in theology than physics--he always saw physics as a sideline. Darwin was studying for the priesthood, however it seems that he couldn't reconcile what he observed on the Beagle expedition with the views that were held by the Anglican dogma at the time, so he bailed on religion.
J. Clarke wrote: ...
That is certainly taking Newton out of the context of the period in which he lived...
--
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.