Jump to content

sebÃss

Members
  • Content count

    1,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About sebÃss

  • Rank
    Member - 1Ker
  • Birthday 10/12/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Additional Information

  • Location
    Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. sebÃss

    Demons

    So what?
  2. sebÃss

    Demons

    So according to you, "phenomenology has nothing to do with objective facts" is the same as "I don't need to know what science is because I have the word of God." Gotcha.
  3. sebÃss

    Demons

    Maybe you can give me an example of your friend saying something supposedly similar to what I said?
  4. sebÃss

    Demons

    How's that working out for you? Serious question; I've never seen a fundie come anywhere close to understanding evolution.
  5. sebÃss

    Demons

    You invite fundamentalists to learn about evolutionary theory?
  6. sebÃss

    Demons

    No gracias. "Where someone is coming from" has nothing to do with how wrong they are.
  7. sebÃss

    Demons

    Stating that something isn't real is not a display of ethnocentrism or mono-culturalism, and it has nothing to do with atheism. Is it insensitive to say that demons do not exist? Maybe, but it's also true. Not to mention that the OP asked for people's opinions and this thread is in the debate forum. Your comparing of Talek's comment to an attack on Native American beliefs is nothing short of ridiculous. What exactly is the problem with de-legitimizing mythology? Newsflash: myths aren't real. I find your argument rather weak considering you can still be a perfectly good researcher without believing the same things that your informants/subjects believe in. Case in point: basically every anthropologist on the planet with a Ph.D has studied some culture without holding stock in their religion. There's a reason only the followers of a particular religion experience the things that the religion claims. A Yanomano Indian trippin' on some forest hallucinogens isn't a testament to the reality of some kind of supernatural experience, and neither is a Christian "personal experience" of demonic possession. It should be clear to anyone that believing in things like demons can have not-so-nice consequences (see 4 posts above).
  8. sebÃss

    Shroud of Turin

    I had a look at the papers mentioned on the website and none of them concluded that the shroud was authentic. I'd actually be very surprised if you could even refer to a single scientific study that authenticated the shroud as belonging to Jesus.
  9. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    Summary: As always, JAG, it's been a pleasure being able to discuss things with you.
  10. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    Sorry JAG, but I'm not really interested in repeated-to-death ID explanations, especially since what you said has nothing to do with the point I was making. Jastrow mixed science and religion, therefore he was a bad scientist. End of story. If he were still alive it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up writing some phony article on answersingenesis. BTW - It's very weird to say "this Dr." when trying to refer to someone who has a Ph.D; it's a lot like saying "this Mr." to refer to some random guy. They are both specific titles, not descriptive nouns.
  11. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    If you're going down my throat for what I'm saying about him then I can't really see this as true. Dealing with the supernatural is definitively not within the realm of science. Sorry. Of course some of the best scientists in the world have been all those things (and atheists as well, which I'm sure was easy for you to exclude). I never said they had to be irreligious, I said that the science they perform has to be secular. You can mention any famous scientist who is religious, but unless he/she is a crack, they kept their science and faith separate (because that is what good scientists do). I thought this was common knowledge. Oh really? How did he find that out? Na. I know you want this guy to be cool because you likely agree with what he is saying, but that's just not how science works. Also, it should be noted that what I'm saying here isn't at all extreme. Jastrow was not practicing science when he made these ID claims and he went against scientific consensus with nothing to show for it. I am not being "biased, arrogant, or illogical", I'm just reminding you how science operates. If you want an idea of what a real astrophysicist is like you can look up Neil deGrasse Tyson (who I think you should be familiar with).
  12. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    Nope. I'm saying saying one stops being a scientist when they no longer practice science. I realize it's easy for people to get excited when a "scientist" is finally on their side, but science has to be secular, and this guy didn't follow scientific standards (even you have to know what this means). What "truth that I disagree with" did he actually discover? Yea there's several people out there like him who have great educations, but that alone doesn't make them a scientist.
  13. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    How's that?
  14. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    Just the fact that he was another perfectly capable scientist gone bad, I suppose. Credibility as a scientist is lost when you 1) believe the supernatural has a relationship with science, 2) give credibility to theology over science, 3) claim to be an agnostic yet perpetuate the idea of Biblical creation, and 4) accept honorary doctorates from Christian schools. I'm sure he was a great astronomer/physicist/astrophysicist, but there's no reason to use a tainted source like him when there's better scientists out there.
  15. sebÃss

    The 6000 year creation belief.

    "Dr." Jastrow is a crack and shouldn't ever be used as a source for anything.
×