kallend 2,146 #1 January 12, 2012 Would that religion would do the same. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240222.php... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 January 12, 2012 How can this be? It's all been peer reviewed, published in 11 "Scientific Journals" Quote The 11 journals that UConn has informed are: American Journal of Physiology - Heart & Circulatory; Antioxidants & Redox Signaling; Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry; Free Radical Biology; Free Radical Research; Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry; Journal of Cellular & Molecular Medicine; Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry; Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; Molecular & Cellular Cardiology; Molecular & Cellular Chemistry. There is a suggestion that the impact of this news on resveratrol research will be minimal. But of course, why should faulty research have any impact? It's just a little boo boo. Not like it happens all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #3 January 12, 2012 Peer review doesn't mean that you go and duplicate the research. If someone is willing to change his results, it will take some time to discover. I think Kallend's point is that once the fraud is discovered, the scientific community polices it's own, unlike other communities. Here's my scientific hypothesis regarding this thread: it will either be 100% bickering about climate change, or 100% bickering about creationism within four posts. Let the experiment begin. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 January 12, 2012 Post #3 covered both topics. You win. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 January 12, 2012 QuoteWould that religion would do the same. Ah, but it does! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #7 January 12, 2012 QuotePost #3 covered both topics. You win. May I consider that a peer review? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #8 January 12, 2012 Quote Would that religion would do the same. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240222.php Would that scientists quit equating religion with the personal relationship with the Supreme Being.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #9 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote Would that religion would do the same. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240222.php Would that scientists quit equating religion with the personal relationship with the Supreme Being. Would that scientists just shut up and do science.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #10 January 12, 2012 The problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. I mean how much does said imaginary friend weight, how tall is he...is he a he? And what language does said thing speak? And well how well can this person defend their views in a well defined civil debate? Science, everything and anything is quantified and categorized. You can either defend or attack a position utilizing quantifiable results. With religion...well you are arguing against someone's imaginary friend which is unquantifiable. Thus indicating one thing, only those of feeble small minds runaway from quantifiable figures and into the imaginary titties of their imaginary friend. Hell want to have fun, ask your local religious person if they can imagine a billion of anything, be it years or stars or atoms.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotePost #3 covered both topics. You win. May I consider that a peer review? Probably not. Don't let my outward appearance of gross competence fool you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #12 January 12, 2012 QuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMOLook for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #13 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #14 January 12, 2012 Quote How can this be? It's all been peer reviewed, published in 11 "Scientific Journals" Quote The 11 journals that UConn has informed are: American Journal of Physiology - Heart & Circulatory; Antioxidants & Redox Signaling; Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry; Free Radical Biology; Free Radical Research; Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry; Journal of Cellular & Molecular Medicine; Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry; Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; Molecular & Cellular Cardiology; Molecular & Cellular Chemistry. There is a suggestion that the impact of this news on resveratrol research will be minimal. But of course, why should faulty research have any impact? It's just a little boo boo. Not like it happens all the time. YEAAAH. Stoopid science. It's all bullshit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 January 12, 2012 Quote Quote How can this be? It's all been peer reviewed, published in 11 "Scientific Journals" Quote The 11 journals that UConn has informed are: American Journal of Physiology - Heart & Circulatory; Antioxidants & Redox Signaling; Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry; Free Radical Biology; Free Radical Research; Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry; Journal of Cellular & Molecular Medicine; Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry; Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; Molecular & Cellular Cardiology; Molecular & Cellular Chemistry. There is a suggestion that the impact of this news on resveratrol research will be minimal. But of course, why should faulty research have any impact? It's just a little boo boo. Not like it happens all the time. YEAAAH. Stoopid science. It's all bullshit! Not all, but this certainly is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 January 12, 2012 Quote Ah, but it does! Quote LOL...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #17 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #18 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots... Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #19 January 12, 2012 Ya, the same old "faith without evidence" routine...as if that is somehow a legitimate or even inflammatory argument.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #20 January 12, 2012 No one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. So whether you like it or not faith in any deity is with out evidence. That is the definition of faith. If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #21 January 12, 2012 Quote If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. ya, duh...who cares?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #22 January 12, 2012 Quote If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. ya, duh...who cares? Those of us capable of drawing the distinction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #23 January 12, 2012 QuoteEmotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #24 January 12, 2012 Quote With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. That's a weak argument, IMO. Just because we can't "measure" something does not mean it doesn't exist. Neutrinos are a prime example.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #25 January 12, 2012 Quote No one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. What would constitute evidence in your argument?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Coreece 190 #17 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #18 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem with religion is that you can't properly quantify an imaginary friend. The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots... Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #19 January 12, 2012 Ya, the same old "faith without evidence" routine...as if that is somehow a legitimate or even inflammatory argument.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #20 January 12, 2012 No one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. So whether you like it or not faith in any deity is with out evidence. That is the definition of faith. If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #21 January 12, 2012 Quote If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. ya, duh...who cares?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #22 January 12, 2012 Quote If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith. ya, duh...who cares? Those of us capable of drawing the distinction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 January 12, 2012 QuoteEmotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #24 January 12, 2012 Quote With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none. That's a weak argument, IMO. Just because we can't "measure" something does not mean it doesn't exist. Neutrinos are a prime example.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #25 January 12, 2012 Quote No one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. What would constitute evidence in your argument?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
