quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
As for the rest, I don't give a fuck what you think of me personally, so we'll leave that a side issue. Nor am I interested in the respect of someone dismissing one-quarter of the world's population as nothing by roadside bomb makers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'm just pointing out a set of patterns you exhibit, thread after thread, issue after issue. And obnoxiously so. Proudly obnoxiously so, apparently.

Among those patterns is the continual misrepresentation of claims and grasping at tangents instead of the core issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
To maintain that Islamic science fell because of it's attachment to Islam ignores centuries of spectacular success equally attached to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
As for today, much as I'm no fan of Fundies, and while yes, they're sticks in the mud regarding science, but they're not responsible for retarding it in any serious way (beyond their perception of it) -- that retardation is the work of zealous budget cutters, slashing funding for NASA, research grants, and so forth.

Again -- that's a change in government focus, not a function of religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
To maintain that Islamic science fell because of it's attachment to Islam ignores centuries of spectacular success equally attached to it.

Since I've pointed to that success four times in the thread now you might want to abandon arguments that hinge on me ignoring said success.

You've missed the point entirely. I'm noting instead that since science HAS flourished under Islam, blaming Islam NOW for slowing science is missing the true cause -- as several experts in my links expounded upon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
As for today, much as I'm no fan of Fundies, and while yes, they're sticks in the mud regarding science, but they're not responsible for retarding it in any serious way (beyond their perception of it) -- that retardation is the work of zealous budget cutters, slashing funding for NASA, research grants, and so forth.

Again -- that's a change in government focus, not a function of religion.

To explicitly use the condition "in any serious way" is to implicitly agree that the phenomenon I'm pointing to exists. Now that we've agreed as to the existence of said phenomenon lets discuss it's seriousness.

To cling to that "well, it exists, just not in any serious way" is a pretty silly point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm not surprised at your response. It's what I expected from you.

Nothing in science "explains everything," including the Big Bang theory. That's the difference between blind ideology and science. You're squarely on the blind ideology side. It's unfortunate.

Nor are you the scientific arbitrator of what's "crap" in science, relative to actual scientists. These are credible enough to be published in scientific journals. That trumps an egotistic poster on a kink website. Even if he says it doesn't. [8|]

There are a host of difficulties for the Big Bang Theory. Does that "disprove" it? No, not necessarily. It acknowledges that it's incomplete at least. And there's good evidence to support it. Bottom line is -- we don't know everything, and over time, we'll learn more and adjust models accordingly -- or even trash them and propose better ones that explain more things (and that's Occam's Razor).
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's a strawman he erected himself, and continually defends.

Not much left to do but attack it. It's as far as he's going to let the discussion go.

Ironic, isn't it? Tyson is warning about ideology shutting off inquiry and learning, and here we see it exemplified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/nasr1.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery's own source
It is interesting that the Wahabi ulema in the nineteenth century opposed completely any interest in modern science and technology. It is today that Saudi Arabia of course has one of the best programs for the teaching of science and technology in the Islamic world. The centers at Dhahran and other places are really quite amazing but it is a very modern transformation. In the nineteenth century, those very people stood opposed to the modernists, and the traditional Muslim ulema whether they were Shafis or Malikis or anything else, felt that as far as science was concerned, [opposition was justified].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery's own source
This left a major vacuum in the intellectual life of the Islamic community for which every single Muslim sitting in this room suffers in one way or another. Many people think this was all the fault of the ulema. I do not think this was all the fault of the ulema, this is also the fault of the authorities which had economic and political power in their hands, and the two in fact went together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yet again, it's not that religion *can't* impede science (indeed, history it certainly has in the west)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
I do not care how many scientists have came out of the mid east in the last 700 years. What does it matter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
What concerns me is extremist violence and the blaming of religion when it is flawed men who taught these masses to embrace violence, making it ok to kill and devalue others. We breed what we do. It puts others in a position to fight in order to protect. Dont blame religion, its not the religion it is the teachers. Over time there have been many bred and its obviously not in one isolated sect or way, its everywhere, all over the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So...I have a dilemma.

Believe that a list of astro-physicists, published in peer-reviewed journals, including a nobel laureate and the same scientist who coined the term Big Bang, or . . .

Ken. . . because he says so.

Gosh, that just doesn't seem like much of a dilemma.

"In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above. Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is credited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950."

Now "the Big Bang is the best theory we have" is a much better argument than "it explains everything." Welcome to Earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yet again, it's not that religion *can't* impede science (indeed, history it certainly has in the west)...

Bam there it is, my position.

I submit to you that the rest is well to quote someone else who presented these behaviors as a bad thing:

"I'm just pointing out a set of patterns you exhibit, thread after thread, issue after issue. And obnoxiously so. Proudly obnoxiously so, apparently.

Among those patterns is the continual misrepresentation of claims and grasping at tangents instead of the core issue."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So...I have a dilemma.

Believe that a list of astro-physicists, published in peer-reviewed journals, including a nobel laureate and the same scientist who coined the term Big Bang, or . . .

Ken. . . because he says so.

Gosh, that just doesn't seem like much of a dilemma.

"In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above. Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is credited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950."

Now "the Big Bang is the best theory we have" is a much better argument than "it explains everything." Welcome to Earth.

Fred Hoyle is another guy who lost it later in his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

The guy came up with nucleosynthesis but then embraced various nutty stuff (panspermia?).

You really should know who you are supporting. At present you are on the side of the guys who thought planets explode, Cydonia is a carved face and life on Earth came from space. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Fred Hoyle is another guy who lost it later in his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

The guy came up with nucleosynthesis but then embraced various nutty stuff (panspermia?).

Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors. ~Stephen Hawking

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Pretty much EVERYBODY who doesn't embrace what you've decided independently is true is nuts in your world.

quote:

I've already told you I'm not supporting anybody -- that's you inventing claims and tangents again. It's what you do.

quote:

My point is that "The Big Bang explains everything" is false. It doesn't. It well explains a lot of things. That's the difference between a good scientific theory and an ideological belief. You embrace the belief camp. You don't know it.