Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

 

[Photonic]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

What I find ironic about all this is she is using the result of those "fraudulent scientific studies" to talk to us about all those "Fraudulent scientific studies."

It's all ******* hilarious, if she lives past 30 she would do well to remember it's only because of science that people live longer than that on average.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've yet to see an actual explanation or reasoning for this, besides stretching the definition of faith to mean several words it does not.



Ah yes, you chose one of the most speculative parts of theoretical physics and apply it to all of science. It's hardly representative of theoretical physics, let alone the rest of science. So his point, and you're larger point about science being built on the same belief as religion falls flat.



Why is the greatness attributed to science undeserved? No one views their findings as being set in stone, any scientist or even a mere look into the history of science will show you that.



Such generalized statements are retarded. It is very easily just as true that religious people never miss an opportunity to insult atheists and/or science.

As you plead for same, I'd be remiss in failing to educate you....

The premise here is that at the highest levels, science is based on the same kind of faith and belief as religion.

It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really.

1. The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. By the 1960’s, physicists understood that there were four forces that dominate the material world:
a. the force of gravitation
b. the electromagnetic force
c. and d. the weak and strong nuclear forces.

In addition, there were a large number of elementary particles. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

3. The model is comprised of three parts:
a. Quantum electodynamics, a successful quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, one with satisfying principles of both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
b. The electroweak theory of Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg, posited if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature exceeded until shortly after the Big Bang) then the electromagnetic force and weak force will merge into a combined electroweak force. Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, today, there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The ‘proof’ has to be imagined at a time far distant, and, today, nothing more than a form of broken symmetry. “The massless particles should have long range effects, but these effects are not seen in experiments. The idea was set aside until 1960, when the concept of particles acquiring mass through symmetry breaking in massless theories was put forward, initially by Jeffrey Goldstone, Yoichiro Nambu, and Giovanni Jona-Lasinio.” Yang

c. Finally, quantum chromodynamics, a theory of the strong nuclear force. In the theory, Yang and Mills outlined a new physical theory, and predicted particles that no experiments had revealed, and strange new symmetries. Interactions grew stronger as the distance between the particles increased.


Still with me, old timer?


4. Now, here come the problems, and how 'science' accomodates them:
a. The Standard Model cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.

b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

c. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. “While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say “God does not play dice”) it is unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.” Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic

The above, from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion," chapter six.

Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week. So, where does the faith equivalent to religious faith come in?

Now, does one abandon the above codified discipline based on the flaws, lacunae, inability to prove outside of mathematical hyperbole and fabrication?

Oh, it's because it's not perfect, therefore for all its flaws scientists must have great faith in the model to describe everything? They still have faith, even though they try to find solutions to the gaps in our knowledge?

Except here's the problem, you don't understand why they aren't dropping it. You think it's because they have religious faith in it. If there was a superior theory out there to explain it, scientists would pick it up pretty handily. They don't drop the standard model right now because the standard model still has it's valid parts. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, when you still can learn things from the bathwater. Another reason is many of the issues surrounding the standard model concern things we don't have a significant knowledge on like dark matter or the existence of the Higgs Boson.

Well, no...not if the above is based on fervent and deeply held conviction....

....also known as faith.

Now, I challenge you to use string theory as a defense.

Why? There's really no reason here, this isn't a debate of science, more so what faith can be construed in in science, and why certain theories are still held as valid despite all their flaws.

A much more better challenge to you would be to try and show me where faith is in the rest of science, and not where it is in the frontiers of physics.[/QUOTE]

_________________________________________________________________________

My response begins here:

This may come under the heading of 'try to teach an old dog new tricks...' but, please, try to learn how to use the quote function.

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Here it is! The 'money quote'!

"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."

Not true.
Either you did not read or understand the post...
...or, more likely, you have your eyes tightly closed and your hands pressed over your ears.

As one tries to do for slow learners, I'll comb out the parts you missed:
a. The Standard Model was considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.

b. Of course, today, there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The ‘proof’ has to be imagined...

c. . “The massless particles should have long range effects, but these effects are not seen in experiments.

d. the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.

e. Above all, the Standard Model does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled.



"It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really."
If that's your myth...er, story...you just stick to it.


Clearly, for those not wedded to the fabrication "scientific method and empircal evidence," it is proven that at the highest levels, theoretical physics, science requires the elememts of faith and belief that theology does.

To reprise my view, I have no problem with your acceptance of same...my argument is with a) atheistic scientists who claim to disparage religious believers who do exactly what they do.

and

b) folks like you, who pretend that my argument is not proven.

If I may amble into the realm of conjecture, I see a desire by folks who take your view to align themselves with those who they see as cognoscenti, and a huge dollop of fear that they will be seen as uneducated.



"Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week."
To clarify, it's usually four to six books a week.
I didn't think you 'smart' folks would have a problem with books....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Science requires much less faith than religion as it attempts to explain the natural world with the fewest number of assumption.

Special relativity, for instance, is based on two assumptions
1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers everywhere
2) the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers everywhere.


All of math is based on assumptions, for instance
a + b = b + a for all a and b
is an unprovable assumption.

 

[Photonic]

Hey, if you want to stretch the word faith like that, it ends up having literally no meaning.

Again, you are using science to talk to us, come to terms with that.

 

[LOki]

I know the following will challenge the attention spans of PoliticalChic and particularly koshergrl, but I will continue my practice of reinforcing my message through repetition, and using as many descriptive terms as necessary to make my points clear, and to disarm the predictably mendacious shenanigans that intellectually dishonest retards like PoliticalChic and koshergrl are so fond of engaging in when their carefully insulated stupidity is exposed. (For example, after having to refer to a dictionary every other time I use a three-syllable word, these two retards have invented the notion that I consider myself an "intellectual" evidenced by my vocabulary--which the average 10th grader should be comfortable with. koshergrl has even gone so far as to imagine that I consider myself a "word-smith." There is no doubt that these two have VERY active imaginations.) At the risk of fueling their delusions about my opinion of myself, it's clearly time to hold the chubby little hands of these two retards, who just can't accept that intellectual foundations of religion and science are entirely different things, and explain to them the facts of reality.

I will start out with small ideas that should not be unwieldly for the small minds of PoliticalChic and koshergrl. Let's talk about "belief."

Belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing.​

This shouldn't be terribly controversial; but it doesn't speak to the strength of that conviction, the degree of certainty, the source or foundation for either the conviction or the certainty. Clearly there is room for more precise terms that describe different kinds of belief. So let me introduce "rational-belief."

Rational-belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, rational-beliefs are validated by verifiable evidence and valid logic (i.e. objective reality).​

This shouldn't be terribly controversial either; it allows for the rationality of beliefs based on incomplete data or held in ignorance of pertinent information; while providing the means to sustain a rational set of beliefs through amending, or revising one's beliefs to conform with (perhaps more) valid logic applied to (perhaps better or more complete) verifiable evidence.

What then of beliefs for which support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, has NOT been established? Let me introduce the term "faith."

Faith is the conviction of unqualified certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Furthermore, faith is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic; the resolute strength of that denial is the "validating" quality of faith.​

Again, this shouldn't be terribly controversial; among the faithful, there is no uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds He has performed. Convictions such as these are held with unconditional certainty, and are achieved by an act of will that requires no reference to, no support in, no establishment upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it requires only unwavering commitment. These convictions--these commitments--are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence against.

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. And every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty as religion does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, PoliticalChic's religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that PoliticalChic (and apparently Berlinski) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. PoliticalChic's (and apparently Berlinski's) argument collapses upon it's strawman foundations ... no surprise there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

Got it?
Hardly.


Einstein originally believed that the universe always existed…until he accepted the explosive nature of the Big Bang cosmology.
Prior to the Big Bang, physicists were in a position to make God unnecessary, but once the nature of a beginning was accepted, it is hard to ignore the question of what was before same.

"First, there is the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: &#923 was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging." Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Guess you didn't get it, huh?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

Got it?
Hardly.


Einstein originally believed that the universe always existed…until he accepted the explosive nature of the Big Bang cosmology.

Well heck, see, science was wrong. it can't be trusted.

Prior to the Big Bang, physicists were in a position to make God unnecessary, but once the nature of a beginning was accepted, it is hard to ignore the question of what was before same.

??? As scientists, physicists don't give a shit whether or not God existed. What they think of the issue on their own time is their business, but in my years as a graduate student in physics, the issue of God was never addressed.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't understand what this has to do with religion vs. science....

A devout warmistant wouldn't.

 

[Photonic]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

Got it?
Hardly.


Einstein originally believed that the universe always existed…until he accepted the explosive nature of the Big Bang cosmology.
Prior to the Big Bang, physicists were in a position to make God unnecessary, but once the nature of a beginning was accepted, it is hard to ignore the question of what was before same.

"First, there is the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: &#923 was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging." Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Guess you didn't get it, huh?

Oh no! You mean Einstein, a scientist, changed his theory to suit the facts?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


**** ME ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG FOREVER AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!!!

 

[kiwiman127]

What exactly was the real purpose of this thread in the first place?

 

[Photonic]

What exactly was the real purpose of this thread in the first place?

Another anti-intelligence thread. These pop up every once in a while.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it.

Got it?
Hardly.


Einstein originally believed that the universe always existed…until he accepted the explosive nature of the Big Bang cosmology.

Well heck, see, science was wrong. it can't be trusted.

Prior to the Big Bang, physicists were in a position to make God unnecessary, but once the nature of a beginning was accepted, it is hard to ignore the question of what was before same.

??? As scientists, physicists don't give a shit whether or not God existed. What they think of the issue on their own time is their business, but in my years as a graduate student in physics, the issue of God was never addressed.

Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.

He was.

As you are.

Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.

1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.

Why the gratuitious attacks?

Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.

 

[Photonic]

Got it?
Hardly.


Einstein originally believed that the universe always existed…until he accepted the explosive nature of the Big Bang cosmology.

Well heck, see, science was wrong. it can't be trusted.

Prior to the Big Bang, physicists were in a position to make God unnecessary, but once the nature of a beginning was accepted, it is hard to ignore the question of what was before same.

??? As scientists, physicists don't give a shit whether or not God existed. What they think of the issue on their own time is their business, but in my years as a graduate student in physics, the issue of God was never addressed.

Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.

He was.

As you are.

Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.

1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.

Why the gratuitious attacks?

Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.

Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!

 

[kiwiman127]

Well heck, see, science was wrong. it can't be trusted.



??? As scientists, physicists don't give a shit whether or not God existed. What they think of the issue on their own time is their business, but in my years as a graduate student in physics, the issue of God was never addressed.

Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.

He was.

As you are.

Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.

1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.

Why the gratuitious attacks?

Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.

Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!

Without science, mankind probably would of died off thousands of years ago. It doesn't take a 10 year old to figure why that statement is a truism.

 

[Photonic]

Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.

He was.

As you are.

Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.

1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.

Why the gratuitious attacks?

Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.

Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!

Without science, mankind probably would of died off thousands of years ago. It doesn't take a 10 year old to figure why that statement is a truism.

The average age of humans is postulated to be around 25 or so prior to agriculture and civilization, it climbed slowly to 36 around the 1900's and at the dawn of modern medicine(that is the application of the scientific method to medicine, or medicine based on science) we have quickly climbed to live on average more than twice as long, and we are very quickly climbing to much much higher than that.

The saying is that the American who will live to be past 150 has already been born, I postulate that the American who will live past 250 was born shortly after.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's not try to change the subject.
Your sarcastic original post suggested that Einstein couldn't be in error.

He was.

As you are.

Your comment about physicists is true of some...but the provenance of this and an earlier thread is that there are those who insist on attacking the community of faith.

1. In 2007, physicist Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

4. I'm sure you are familiar with Dawkins, Stengler, and others who have written books in the same vein.

Why the gratuitious attacks?

Let me suggest an answer: because these atheist scientists demand acquiescence to their views...and the majority of Americans have a very different view.

Funny, you are talking to us through a device made by those same atheists, enjoy your new knowledge!

Without science, mankind probably would of died off thousands of years ago. It doesn't take a 10 year old to figure why that statement is a truism.

Mr. Strawman, could you name the folks who are opposed to science?
Do they exist outside of your imagination?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science requires much less faith than religion as it attempts to explain the natural world with the fewest number of assumption.

Special relativity, for instance, is based on two assumptions
1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers everywhere
2) the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers everywhere.


All of math is based on assumptions, for instance
a + b = b + a for all a and b
is an unprovable assumption.

"Science requires much less faith than religion..."

Reasonable, Dr. Obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What exactly was the real purpose of this thread in the first place?

Now we're getting somewhere!


Suggestion: read the posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What exactly was the real purpose of this thread in the first place?

Another anti-intelligence thread. These pop up every once in a while.

The real anti-intellecuals are those who pretend to understand science, and even make that suggestion in their avis....

....get my drift, Lightweight?