Science Is/As A Religion

[Intense]

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.

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?

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies.

Here is a challenge rdean:

"Please enumerate the supposed 14 lies without using the word Republican."

Think you can do it??

 

[sangha]

NO ONE READS THIS. Not even the people who would probably agree with it. Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.

I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.

STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[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.

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?

I just love the way Intense proves his ignorance is not limited to just one topic. All of science befuddles him

Conclusions are not based on Theories. Theories *ARE* conclusions. This proves that you don't even know what a Scientific Theory is

And "cold" does not exist. "Cold" is a word we use to describe a lack of heat.

 

[rdean]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit(1).

Science has it's (2)venerated saints; (3)Einstein, (4)Madam Currie, (5)etc.

And is extremely (6)rigid in it's (7)dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific(8) beliefs.

They will be(9) shunned or even(10) excommunicated from the scientific community as (11)heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more(12) faith than(13) many religions.

Belief(14) in evolution would be an example of extreme(15) faith in the unknown.

In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies.

Here is a challenge rdean:

"Please enumerate the supposed 14 lies without using the word Republican."

Think you can do it??

I never used the word Republican, but since you mention it, "6%" and "90%".

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

 

[Intense]

NO ONE READS THIS. Not even the people who would probably agree with it. Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.

I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.

STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you

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.

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

 

[José]

I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.

I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity

 

[rdean]

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.

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"?

 

[José]

THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM COMPRISES:

THE BIG BANG THEORY:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE'S EARLY DEVELOPMENT, AKA, EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE IT WENT FROM EXTREME SIMPLICITY (HIGH ENERGY) TO COMPLEXITY (FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, ETC...)

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THEORY OF GALAXY FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES, AKA, EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES BECAUSE IT WENT FROM MERE HYDROGEN AND HELIUM GAS AND DUST TO A COMPLEX GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE.

Galaxy formation and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THEORY OF SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) IDEM

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE CREATION OF LIFE = ABIOGENESIS

(FIELD: BIOLOGY)

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (See Shanga, Hick??: your beloved theory is a mere subset of the overarching evolutionany scientific paradigm)

(FIELD: BIOLOGY) SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS SPECIATION. IT EXPLAINS HOW COMPLEX SPECIES ON EARTH AROSE FROM SIMPLER ONES.

THE EVOLUTION OF HOMO SAPIENS:

(FIELD: ANTHROPOLOGY)

THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILISATIONS, SOCIETIES:

(FIELDS: ANTHROPOLOGY, HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, ETC...)

 

[José]

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (how matter became life) as Hick and sangha correctly stated.

BUT THE LACK OF A SOLID ABIOGENESIS THEORY IS A MAJOR GAP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM!!!!

 

[José]

Sangha and Hick lie on the floor of the USMB, 10 teeth missing, bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, unable to pronounce coherent words let alone phrases and sentences.

And the whole USMB think to themselves:

Holy crap!! What a beatdown!!

 

[asterism]

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...

True, and those who accept religion recognize it's not scientific. Those of us who accept both science and religion don't think it's a valid conflict.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Science is an abstraction. Science does not think. Science does not talk.

You need to separate the SCIENTISTS from the SCIENCE.

So some scientists go off on an ego trip and become priests for the god of science. That is just dumb human behavior and the abstraction of science is not responsible. But science is about figuring out the unknown on the basis of obviously limited information. And very good scientists will inevitably make mistakes. That is why BELIEVING in science is an error. The objective is not to believe it is to UNDERSTAND. To an extent every individual must be his own scientists. You have to admit what you understand and do not understand to yourself. And admit what you just don't know.

It is just funny to me that so many people make such a big deal about evolution. Some atheists act like the purpose of science is to beat on religion.

psik

 

[asterism]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!

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

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

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?

 

[asterism]

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.

Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...

the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!

You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong, you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'

And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

did you see the quote from Dawkins?

How about one from Darwin himself:

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library


"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"


Do you have an explanation?


No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.

fossilization is a rare event


How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?

How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?

An excellent point to refute those who say, "where is the evidence?" However, it's not supportive to those who claim they work only on known evidence since you are saying lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory.

 

[sangha]

I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.

STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you

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.