Science Is/As A Religion

[José]

And the massacre continues unabated.

Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:

"SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence".

 

[sangha]

Do I have to explain it again? Good Gaea, you're not very bright, are you?

I showed where stupid people claim that evolution explains the origin of life. You pouted and refused to accept it, although that in no way changed the reality.

Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"

It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)

But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?

Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.

However...you don't. So you're not.

You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")

Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts

 

[daveman]

Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter

Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

 

[sangha]

Originally posted by SmarterThanHick
This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.
Similarly, the theory of evolution, also know as evolution theory, a solid and evidence based predictable and accurate description of how life changes over time, may have the word "evolution" in common with "cosmic evolution", which itself is an unsupported non-evidence-based contrivance not supported by the scientific community, and therefore the two are NOT related, and are not the same.

One is essentially fact. The other is guesswork.

OH, I see... the Big Bang theory (grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution), the theory of galaxy formation and development (grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution), solar system formation and development (grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution) are not the best theories we have to explain the Universe they are just "unsupported guesswork".

Learn something new everyday... (preferably not from mentally retarded people).

Originally posted by SmarterThanHick
This is a common and foolish fallacy made by less intelligent people, being that if two things share anything in common, they are the same and connected.

Well, it's a common trait of scientific illiterate people to not have the slightest idea about what a scientific paradigm is (even though they are not scientific theories in and of themselves).

You and sangha fit this aspect of scientific illiteracy to a T.

Originally posted by SmarterThanHick
Here's an easy way to prove this point: can you reference a single peer-reviewed published scientific article that has reviewed or done research in the field of "cosmic evolution" that deals with abiogenesis? A single paper? This is the standard of ascertaining whether the scientific community accepts a concept: seeing what actual published scientists say about it. For example, I can produce hundreds of thousands on the theory of evolution. Can you produce one regarding your "paradigm" even though you can't actually define what "scientific paradigm" means?

The scientific paradigms that GUIDE the scientific endeavor are not the subject of study of scientists, Einstein!! They are the underlying structures, the "background" upon which scientific theories are "built".

They are the subject of a branch of philosophy named "Philosophy of Science".

When I say the evolutionary paradigm is universally accepted by science is because all the major theories of cosmology (Big Bang, formation of galaxies\solar systems), biology (Evolution), history (development of human civilisations) accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity.

Originally posted by SmarterThanHick
It's funny because you prove yourself wrong in two sentences. You say it's a solid concept "universally accepted by modern science" and then you point out a major gap in it. Here's a little hint: the scientific community generally does not "universally accept" things with large gaps in them. We don't have "half a theory of gravity".

Tell this to the scientific community of cosmologists who accept the Big Bang as the most likely explanation for the arisal of primordial complexity in the cosmos DESPITE THE MAJOR GAP regarding the first phase of the phenomenon.

Oh. My. God!!!

He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.

He also claims that scientists "accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."

This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated

At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)

 

[daveman]

Umm, no. You're lying again. You talked about non-existent "sciencers". If you had been honest, and merely stated what you meant (ie "some stupid people think dark matter exists") you would have been challenged. But because you're so dishonest, you had to overstate your case, and make up words like "sciencer"

It turns out that "sciencer" means "stupid people". If you had just been honest and forthcoming about this, you could have spared yourself embarrassment (I'm assuming you have a sense of shame; something I'm not certain about)

But I guess I was the one who made a mistake. How dumb was it for me to think that you would be honest?

Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.

However...you don't. So you're not.

You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")

Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts

Thanks for proving my point. You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.

 

[sangha]

Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter

Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

 

[sangha]

Good grief, if you put half as much energy into real thought as you do in twisting words to "prove" you're right and deliberately skewing reality, you might be interesting to talk with.

However...you don't. So you're not.

You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")

Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts

Thanks for proving my point. You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.

Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.

Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?

 

[Intense]

And the massacre continues unabated.

Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:

"SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence".

What is up with that? I was out shoveling blowing snow, cut me a break Jose.

 

[sangha]

And the massacre continues unabated.

Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:

"SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence".

What is up with that? I was out shoveling blowing snow, cut me a break Jose.

Some people lack confidence in their position so to buck up their confidence, they imagine that strangers on the internet are agreeing with them when the truth is, they're out shoveling snow

 

[daveman]

Here is all the text from the post you linked to. Please note that everyone can see that there is no mention of stupid people who think dark matter exists. In fact, there's no mention of dark matter. The post refers to the origins of life, evolution and sciencers, but no mention of "stupid people" and no mention of dark matter

Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

 

[daveman]

You're the one who put all the effort into making up lies about people who don't exist (ie "sciencers")

Once again, you've made false claims, and have failed to back them up. All you have is your childish taunts. You have no facts

Thanks for proving my point. You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.

Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.

Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?

Yawn.

 

[sangha]

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that

So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied

So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?

 

[sangha]

Thanks for proving my point. You'd rather claim I lied than accept the fact that there are stupid people on your side.

Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.

Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?

Yawn.

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

 

[Intense]

Your actions corrupts your soul.

You're not even honest enough to admit to the venom that you post. Like a typical christian, you want to falsely depict yourself as a victim. You are just SO BURDENED by your laughable "obligation"

If you can't hack it, give it up, you nancy-boy

What is this? The Paper Chase? You are deluding yourself, thinking that you impress by talking down to everyone, Sangha. You don't. Neither do you respect people, or the Site, or yourself, knowing the damage that you do at times. It would be wrong for you to over play your hand. You need to work on those social skills, bro. It's not about judging or condemning you, it's about learning from your mistakes, and being better for it. Something only you can do, it can't be done for you. My Soul, is not within your reach Sangha, nor would I seek to damage yours. I am not depicting myself as a Victim, either. A reference to a thick skin, in context, is a reference to me handling anything you choose to throw at me. I'm a Alpha Type, alway's have been. I respect boundaries too, how about you trying that.

And here we have more of the meaningless drivel that Intense thinks is profound. He makes a reference to an irrelevant movie and then talks down to me for talking down to him.

Sangha, The meaningless drivel is coming from you. What it translates to, for me, is a bastardized application of the Socratic Method, compounded by your distortions, false assumptions, lack of character, and misleading rants. Again, your position is a fail, and your only recourse to insult and divert the Thread.

The Socratic method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas.[1] It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defence of one point of view is pitted against the defence of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point. (Think about the question before you speak.)

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. Perhaps oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics. Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[José]

Originally posted by sangha
Oh. My. God!!!

He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.

He also claims that scientists "accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."

This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated

At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)

Sangha,

The notion of cosmic evolution, aka, evolutionary paradigm (some of the energy, matter and life in the Universe evolve from lower to higher levels of complexity) is OBVIOUSLY embedded into the Big Bang theory, galaxy, star and solar system formation and biological evolution.

I would say it's so SCANDALOUSLY present in them that embedded is probably a "poor choice of words" (here we go again lol)

Whether or not a particular scientist chooses to deny what's in front of his eyes is his problem and does not change this fact a bit.

Edit: And trust me no scientist in his right mind denies it.

 

[sangha]

Originally posted by sangha
Oh. My. God!!!

He admits that his whole "paradigm" isn't science (he says it only guides science) but then goes on to claim that this paradigm is UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by science, even though science does not "accept" or "approve" of philosophies.

He also claims that scientists "accept the fact that during the course of the history of the Universe part of its constituent matter, energy and life have gradually moved from lower to higher complexity."

This moron thinks that the decaying body of a dead animal is more complex and has more energy than the animal had when it was alive. But then I remember this is the same guy who said that The Theory of Evolution was related to the way solar systems form. At least, until he admitted that they were unrelated

At least, until he started trying to claim that they were related again (by way of the non-scientific paradigm that scientists haven't even studied, but have UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED)

Sangha,

The notion of cosmic evolution, aka, evolutionary paradigm (some of the energy, matter and life in the Universe evolve from lower to higher levels of complexity) is OBVIOUSLY embedded into the Big Bang theory, galaxy, star and solar system formation and biological evolution.

I would say it's so SCANDALOUSLY present in them that embedded is probably a "poor choice of words" (here we go again lol)

Whether or not a particular scientist chooses to deny what's in front of his eyes is his problem and does not change this fact a bit.

.

Now the wingnut wants us to think that his unsicientific paradigm is so obvious that no has even mentioned it.

The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.

Edit: And trust me no scientist in his right mind denies it

You know that every scientist agrees with you even though you say no scientist has ever studied your paradigm

 

[José]

Originally posted by sangha
The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.

The evolutionary paradigm refers to the BIG PICTURE, sangha, not the individual galaxy, solar system or human being!!!!

Examples:

When the theory of galaxy formation states that in the Universe's distant past there were only clouds of hydrogen and helium and now there are billions of galaxies they are implicitly saying that part of the matter evolved from simpler to more complex levels of organisation.

When evolutionists state that the Cambrian animal "Pikaia" or Haikouichthys are the oldest known ancestors of modern vertebrates, the probable ancestors of modern primates and the human species they are obviously stating that part of the planet's biomass increased exponentially in complexity in the last 500 million years regardless of individual "Pikaias" and humans being born and dying during this period of time!!

 

[sangha]

Originally posted by sangha
The universe is filled with complex things that are degrading into something less complex.

The evolutionary paradigm refers to the BIG PICTURE, sangha, not the individual galaxy, solar system or human being!!!!

Examples:

When the theory of galaxy formation states that in the Universe's distant past there were only clouds of hydrogen and helium and now there are billions of galaxies they are implicitly saying that part of the matter evolved from simpler to more complex levels of organisation.

When evolutionists state that the Cambrian animal "Pikaia" or Haikouichthys are the oldest known ancestors of modern vertebrates, the probable ancestors of modern primates and the human species they are obviously stating that part of the planet's biomass increased exponentially in complexity in the last 500 million years regardless of individual "Pikaias" and humans being born and dying during this period of time!!

In the wingnut world of Jose, galaxies never fall apart and are never destroyed. I would know that if I knew about the wingnut worlds BIG PICTURE

 

[daveman]

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)



So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that

So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied

So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?

I give up. You win teh internets. You didn't say what you said. Congratulations.

It's my own fault, really. I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.

 

[sangha]

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that

So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied

So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?

I give up. You win teh internets. You didn't say what you said. Congratulations.

It's my own fault, really. I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.

Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?

If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"

And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?

Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?