This is an exercise in logic. Please answer as best you can without performing any Googling.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
How is this a poll for the "religion" section??
curious
curious
you'll see, greenhill mom.
DF
DF
What??? Where was I ????
Skeptik
You do know there are those who are skeptical of the claim man visited the moon.
Skeptik
You do know there are those who are skeptical of the claim man visited the moon.
F. All of the above. 
Deep’
A logic question for you:
Do you think God would allow man to visit the moon?
A logic question for you:
Do you think God would allow man to visit the moon?
I will ignore your begging the question, with regard to the existence of god. Assuming he does, apparently he would, as we went there.
DF
DF
The moon has it's own gravity, but it's a fraction of what the Earth's gravity is. That's why the astronauts didn't float off into space, but they could jump farther than a Ethiopian track star.
So what does this have to do with religion?
So what does this have to do with religion?
i cant believe some people are getting this wrong
Skymaster, that is hilarious!
I stole this from a university of Florida physics professor's website here: Link
The overall response to this question were quite similar to the responses of the people that were the mentioned in this very informal, unscientific study.
Of 11 responses here (so far) 8 of you got it right. I bet I could guess the identity of 2 out of 3 of the respondants.
Gravity "happens" wherever you have mass. The more massive an object is, the stronger the gravitational pull of the object. The moon's is about 1/80th the mass of earth making its gravity one-sixth that of the Earth's. So that a man who weighs 180lb on Earth weighs only 30 lb on the Moon.
Why is this question posted in a religion section? I believe the question illustrates a chasm between science and religion that may never be bridged. When otherwise very smart people so utterly misunderstand reality that they believe heavy boots kept men from floating off the face of the moon, we have a serious problem.
All three people who answered incorrectly once knew this stuff. It is taught to all of us at very earliest ages and repeatedly all the way through graduation. Yet, still, some of us forget all that and substitute our knowledge of reality with something demonstrably wrong.
The people who got this wrong are the same people who deny the reality of evolution or big bang or who insist that a mass of cells much smaller than this period (.) is a live human being worthy of all rights and privileges afforded to any other human.
I think all this is indicative of the same anti-intellectual disease that is at least partially propagated by the fundamentalists in our society who have far too much access to the minds of our children.
That's what I think.
The overall response to this question were quite similar to the responses of the people that were the mentioned in this very informal, unscientific study.
Of 11 responses here (so far) 8 of you got it right. I bet I could guess the identity of 2 out of 3 of the respondants.
Gravity "happens" wherever you have mass. The more massive an object is, the stronger the gravitational pull of the object. The moon's is about 1/80th the mass of earth making its gravity one-sixth that of the Earth's. So that a man who weighs 180lb on Earth weighs only 30 lb on the Moon.
Why is this question posted in a religion section? I believe the question illustrates a chasm between science and religion that may never be bridged. When otherwise very smart people so utterly misunderstand reality that they believe heavy boots kept men from floating off the face of the moon, we have a serious problem.
All three people who answered incorrectly once knew this stuff. It is taught to all of us at very earliest ages and repeatedly all the way through graduation. Yet, still, some of us forget all that and substitute our knowledge of reality with something demonstrably wrong.
The people who got this wrong are the same people who deny the reality of evolution or big bang or who insist that a mass of cells much smaller than this period (.) is a live human being worthy of all rights and privileges afforded to any other human.
I think all this is indicative of the same anti-intellectual disease that is at least partially propagated by the fundamentalists in our society who have far too much access to the minds of our children.
That's what I think.
Really, skep? I thought it was indicative of the education provided in public schools in the latter part of the 20th Century. That and an inability to use logic. (Or perhaps they just never watched those Disney shows.)
This is only slightly related to the subject, but it does explain some odd couples. It seems the bell curve for male intelligence is slightly wider than that for females. So, yes, there are many smarter men than women, but, now, ready...think about it. That works on both ends of the bell.
This is only slightly related to the subject, but it does explain some odd couples. It seems the bell curve for male intelligence is slightly wider than that for females. So, yes, there are many smarter men than women, but, now, ready...think about it. That works on both ends of the bell.
Point taken, FV, but I don't think it's a measure of "intelligence" per se'. I think it is more, er, "fundamental" than that. Why, it is as if they have been brainwashed.
Their "reality" is so different from the rest of us that when I say, "Gravity is associated with mass" they hear "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit." In one ear, right out the other. Perhaps the machinery necessary to grasp the words just isn't there.
This professor's website made me consider people like GBRK and others who are utterly incapable of grasping even the simplest aspects of biological evolution (for example) yet can recite some pretty deep philosophical concepts.
They aren't dumb, they just can't grasp the same reality the rest of us live in.
Their "reality" is so different from the rest of us that when I say, "Gravity is associated with mass" they hear "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit." In one ear, right out the other. Perhaps the machinery necessary to grasp the words just isn't there.
This professor's website made me consider people like GBRK and others who are utterly incapable of grasping even the simplest aspects of biological evolution (for example) yet can recite some pretty deep philosophical concepts.
They aren't dumb, they just can't grasp the same reality the rest of us live in.
So how do you explain those of us who got the question right?
Skep,
I don't see how this relates to religion at all. You're implying that if you are religious, you have no science background and vice versa.
Of course the moon has gravity and they did use weighted boots to increase their mass and lines to keep from floating off.
I don't see the point.
I don't see how this relates to religion at all. You're implying that if you are religious, you have no science background and vice versa.
Of course the moon has gravity and they did use weighted boots to increase their mass and lines to keep from floating off.
I don't see the point.
quote:Originally posted by LMM:
You're implying that if you are religious, you have no science background and vice versa.
No, not at all. Remember, I was once "religious."
If you care to read the site that I stole this stuff from, he explains it a little better but what I took away from it was the thought that perhaps some people are not capable (due to brainwashing or perhaps even genetics) of grasping fundamental concepts that I take for granted.
You, LMM, are obviously well versed in matters of reality. You are perfectly able to compartmentalize your religion with your science. You know certain obvious facts about the universe and, if you didn't, would almost certainly be willing to learn the facts, assimilate them, and perhaps adjust your religion accordingly.
Some people, on the other hand, are perfectly able or willing to deny those same facts or are missing some mechanism that would allow them to assimilate the fact into their worldview.
A recent example of this might be this: I have always known that there were many other stories that resembled that of the story of Jesus. Miraculous births, ascensions into heaven, resurrections, have all been common knowledge to me since I was just a little one. Didn't everyone know this stuff?
But there is a person here who is close to my age that has somehow never managed to hear of those stories. Despite showing some pretty strong evidence that these stories have been told for thousands of years by hundreds of cultures, this person still says (essentially), "Not true at all. Those stories never happened. My story is the only true one."
This person denies reality in favor of his own. I never cease to be fascinate with that mental process. This poll question is a feeble attempt to identify this vague denial process and perhaps understand it a little better.
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:
I stole this from a university of Florida physics professor's website here: Link
The overall response to this question were quite similar to the responses of the people that were the mentioned in this very informal, unscientific study.
Of 11 responses here (so far) 8 of you got it right. I bet I could guess the identity of 2 out of 3 of the respondants.
Gravity "happens" wherever you have mass. The more massive an object is, the stronger the gravitational pull of the object. The moon's is about 1/80th the mass of earth making its gravity one-sixth that of the Earth's. So that a man who weighs 180lb on Earth weighs only 30 lb on the Moon.
Why is this question posted in a religion section? I believe the question illustrates a chasm between science and religion that may never be bridged. When otherwise very smart people so utterly misunderstand reality that they believe heavy boots kept men from floating off the face of the moon, we have a serious problem.
All three people who answered incorrectly once knew this stuff. It is taught to all of us at very earliest ages and repeatedly all the way through graduation. Yet, still, some of us forget all that and substitute our knowledge of reality with something demonstrably wrong.
The people who got this wrong are the same people who deny the reality of evolution or big bang or who insist that a mass of cells much smaller than this period (.) is a live human being worthy of all rights and privileges afforded to any other human.
I think all this is indicative of the same anti-intellectual disease that is at least partially propagated by the fundamentalists in our society who have far too much access to the minds of our children.
That's what I think.
Re:
Skep
Conclusion:
Guilty of the “misuse of statistics”
A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy.
The false statistics trap can be quite damaging to the quest for knowledge. Wiki.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, dammmed lies and statistics” [Benjamin Disraeli]
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:Originally posted by LMM:
You're implying that if you are religious, you have no science background and vice versa.
No, not at all. Remember, I was once "religious."
If you care to read the site that I stole this stuff from, he explains it a little better but what I took away from it was the thought that perhaps some people are not capable (due to brainwashing or perhaps even genetics) of grasping fundamental concepts that I take for granted.
You, LMM, are obviously well versed in matters of reality. You are perfectly able to compartmentalize your religion with your science. You know certain obvious facts about the universe and, if you didn't, would almost certainly be willing to learn the facts, assimilate them, and perhaps adjust your religion accordingly.
Some people, on the other hand, are perfectly able or willing to deny those same facts or are missing some mechanism that would allow them to assimilate the fact into their worldview.
A recent example of this might be this: I have always known that there were many other stories that resembled that of the story of Jesus. Miraculous births, ascensions into heaven, resurrections, have all been common knowledge to me since I was just a little one. Didn't everyone know this stuff?
But there is a person here who is close to my age that has somehow never managed to hear of those stories. Despite showing some pretty strong evidence that these stories have been told for thousands of years by hundreds of cultures, this person still says (essentially), "Not true at all. Those stories never happened. My story is the only true one."
This person denies reality in favor of his own. I never cease to be fascinate with that mental process. This poll question is a feeble attempt to identify this vague denial process and perhaps understand it a little better.
'''You, LMM, are obviously well versed in matters of reality. You are perfectly able to compartmentalize your religion with your science.'''
I suppose that's one way of putting it. I don't consider my faith to be a separate part of who I am (just devoid of science reasoning). I have never had a conflict of the two. Big Bang-God did it. Evolution-yes. Man from chimp-no.
Earth age 4.5 billion years-yes. Bible history of man-6000 years-yes, as long as time is treated as God's time frame, not man's.
Bible perfect-no. Bible as the word of God-yes, but through man's interpretation from many times frames and many views.
As stated I have never had a conflict. Why should I?
quote:Originally posted by LMM:
As stated I have never had a conflict. Why should I?
I am sorry to inform you that you will burn in the Fires if you do not think the way certain people want you to think!
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:
[
I am sorry to inform you that you will burn in the Fires if you do not think the way certain people want you to think!
Why are you so uneasy
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:Originally posted by LMM:
As stated I have never had a conflict. Why should I?
I am sorry to inform you that you will burn in the Fires if you do not think the way certain people want you to think!
I am aware, as I have already being accused of being a "New Age" religious person, a secular religious person and told that hubby's Catholic religion is wrong.
To borrow your line:
What? Me Worry?
Nope.
L,
Save me a place by the fire, willya?
DF
Save me a place by the fire, willya?
DF
quote:The people who got this wrong are the same people who deny the reality of evolution or big bang or who insist that a mass of cells much smaller than this period (.) is a live human being worthy of all rights and privileges afforded to any other human.
That, sir, is a rather unscientific assumption.
Way to shoot your point in the foot.
quote:Originally posted by SardonicPoet:
That, sir, is a rather unscientific assumption.
I'm not seeing it. Which part? Care to elaborate?
1) You have no idea who chose the incorrect answers.
2) You therefore have no idea of the religious beliefs of said incorrect participants.
3) Did I really have to spell this out to you?
2) You therefore have no idea of the religious beliefs of said incorrect participants.
3) Did I really have to spell this out to you?
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,
Save me a place by the fire, willya?
DF
Got the weinners and marshmallows all ready DF. You bring the beer!
PS: None of that 'lite' crap, that would be HELL!
quote:'''You, LMM, are obviously well versed in matters of reality. You are perfectly able to compartmentalize your religion with your science.'''
I suppose that's one way of putting it. I don't consider my faith to be a separate part of who I am (just devoid of science reasoning). I have never had a conflict of the two. Big Bang-God did it. Evolution-yes. Man from chimp-no.
Earth age 4.5 billion years-yes. Bible history of man-6000 years-yes, as long as time is treated as God's time frame, not man's.
Bible perfect-no. Bible as the word of God-yes, but through man's interpretation from many times frames and many views.
As stated I have never had a conflict. Why should I?
Excellent post, I agree completely.
quote:Originally posted by LMM:quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,
Save me a place by the fire, willya?
DF
Got the weinners and marshmallows all ready DF. You bring the beer!
PS: None of that 'lite' crap, that would be HELL!
I'll bring the chocolate & graham crackers, s'mores are the bomb. They go great with a nice tasty stout.
I agree with the ban on "lite" beer. Lite is beer for people who don't like beer.
I'll make it Grolsch, then.
DF
I hope there are bottle openers in Hell.
DF
I hope there are bottle openers in Hell.
quote:Originally posted by SardonicPoet:
1) You have no idea who chose the incorrect answers.
2) You therefore have no idea of the religious beliefs of said incorrect participants.
3) Did I really have to spell this out to you?
I thought you were disagreeing with the big bang, evolution or the "period at the end of the sentence" analogy.
Now I see that you are disagreeing with my statement "the people who got this wrong are the same people who deny evolution . . ."
And you are exactly right. That is a large leap of faith and wholly unscientific. Perhaps even inaccurate.
But I bet you a dollah it's true.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
I'll make it Grolsch, then.
DF
I hope there are bottle openers in Hell.
I'm sure will manage. Lager is a bit much for my tastes, how about some Kahlua for me? Goes great with chocolate!
quote:Originally posted by big red afro:
i cant believe some people are getting this wrong
Me too! Science is not my forte, but even I knew that one!
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
I'll make it Grolsch, then.
DF
I hope there are bottle openers in Hell.
Don't need bottle openers, I've got a wedding ring. Works like a charm. Don't tell the wife.
quote:Originally posted by LMM:quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,
Save me a place by the fire, willya?
DF
Got the weinners and marshmallows all ready DF. You bring the beer!
PS: None of that 'lite' crap, that would be HELL!
LMM, my beliefs are very close to yours. I'll bring the chocolate & graham crackers so we can have smores' too.
Great autumn, Nash is bringing some too. We have a party in the making.
Don't tell the fundamentalists.
Don't tell the fundamentalists.
LMM, assuming you're talking Heaven, is that because they think they're the only ones there? hee/hee
Or, because the hangover is supposed to come AFTER the party, not before?
Or, because the hangover is supposed to come AFTER the party, not before?