Science Is/As A Religion

[Intense]

There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.

Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in.

That's science, NOT religion.

I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to.

Does this look a little confusing? Because it does to me. "I believe in absolutes unless they change"?

Your mistake is in think that Intense's words have any meaning. They are nothing more than grandiose pronouncements designed to sound profound while offering nothing of significance

What I find here is a definitiveness within you, a deficiency, that motivates you to strike out at others. You have issues, which are reflected in the majority of your posts, diminishing the value of them.

 

[sangha]

Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.

Once again for the intense moron:

STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent

You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"

That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.

Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?

STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent

What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.

You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"

Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.

You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.

And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"

 

[sangha]

I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.

You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your ignorance is impressive! That kind of stupid takes hard work!

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.

 

[José]

Originally posted by sangha
"The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE.

They DO have something in common. They all describe the arisal of more complex structures from simpler ones, aka, EVOLUTION.

That's why the Big Bang theory, Galaxy/Solar System formation and development, THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS, the theory of biological evolution, etc, etc... can all the grouped together into a single overarching scientific concept known as "THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM".

Contrary to what ignoramuses like Hick say the evolutionary paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY MODERN SCIENCE.

The lack of a consistent, solid abiogenesis theory is indeed a major gap in this paradigm.

 

[Intense]

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?

You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat". Heat is energy. Cold is "lack of energy".

The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.

 

[José]

Originally posted by SmaterThanHick
It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.

Says the guy who's never made a poor choice of words in his whole life, let alone in the heat of a debate.

 

[sangha]

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.

Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.

Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance. Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.

Nothing in science is ever really "known". There are no "beliefs". What there is, is "skepticism". Science is all about "skepticism".

"Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.

Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".

The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense. Turn science into a belief. Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong". While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 20:24-29 NIV

 

[sangha]

Originally posted by sangha
"The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE.

They DO have something in common. They all describe the arisal of more complex structures from simpler ones.

TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.

That's why the Big Bang theory, Galaxy/Solar System formation and development, THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS, the theory of biological evolution, etc, etc... can all the grouped together into a single overarching scientific concept known as "THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM".

There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support

Contrary to what ignoramuses like Hick say the evolutionary paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY MODERN SCIENCE.

And yet, despite this UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support

The lack of a consistent, solid abiogenesis theory is indeed a major gap in this paradigm.

That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.

 

[Intense]

That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

Can your conclusion be proven?

Can you stop the flow of protons, neutrons and electrons? Some one once had a Thread about proving that Time exists. Great Thread. There is alway's where we were, where we are and where we are going as opposed to where we think we are going. Perspectives and limitations change with knowledge. When speaking on Religion or Science, or Politics, there are common factors that seem to always trip us up. That is my whole point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.

Unlike religion...

Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.

 

[rdean]

You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.

Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.

Quite poorly, too.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out. The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along. One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp. Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted. So he was just trying to get a little attention.

You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613

Looks like I struck a nerve.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

Really?

Perhaps you could share a few "examples"?

 

[rdean]

Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?

Different "sciencers" believe in different things.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"

Answer - christians lie

It's a "belief". Belief equals reality. The medical profession calls that "delusion", but what do they know? That's thread for another day.

 

[sangha]

The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.



For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?

You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat". Heat is energy. Cold is "lack of energy".

The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.

Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.

And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature) as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.

Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say

 

[sangha]

Originally posted by SmaterThanHick
It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.

Says the guy who's never made a poor choice of words in his whole life, let alone in the heat of a debate.

If you had admitted that you had made a mistake (ie a poor choice of words) from the beginning, you wouldn't have needed to try and distract our attention away from your mistake by denying it and accusing STAH of making the mistake.

But at least you're finally admitting that you're the one who was wrong. Shame it took so much work just to get you to be honest

 

[Intense]

We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.

And how effective was it at that goal. I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it. Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.

This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.

We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.

It would have, if not for a few here. No Offense.
How do you measure cold?

 

[sangha]

Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.

Unlike religion...

Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.

Ummm, maybe because they didn't want to be excommunicated and possibly tortured or killed by the violent christians?

 

[Greenbeard]

Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.

Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.

I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.

These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.

BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth.

Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.

The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual wax candle is kind of mind-boggling.

 

[José]

Origianlly posted by sangha
TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.

Partially true. Evolution does not necessarily leads to more complex species, but complexity happened on Earth as a kind of side effect of evolution.

Or do you deny that Earth's higher organisms like reptiles, birds and mammals DID evolve from simpler life forms?

Originally posted by sangha
There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support.

And yet, despite this UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support

That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

I'm done "debating" with Hick and sangha.

If these two guys have the courage to deny the existence of one of the most fundamental scientific paradigms upon which the whole body of modern Cosmology, Astronomy, Anthropology, History and Sociology rests they are lost case that do not deserve my attention.