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

[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.

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

....get my drift, Lightweight?

I find it hard for me to take you seriously, because it is clear to me as a scientist, a physicist, and an atheist, that most of your posts are rooted in misinformation.

Not to mention your clear usage of the equivocation fallacy. I would be happy to point that out to you as well if you wish.

My usage of the Feynman Diagram is more a tribute to the man himself. It is somewhat out of date of course, but it is still usable if you must do it by hand.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

You must have trouble understanding English. My first post clearly stated that Einstein was wrong. How you got that as a statement that he is infallible is beyond me. Perhaps you are really just stupid.

 

[LOki]

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:

Keep posting!

 

[Photonic]

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:

Keep posting!

She missed Neil DeGrasse Tyson's points on religion and its harmful effects on society and science as well.

 

[Nosmo King]

Absolutely.

Not that it means that we should discard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But what I'm trying to get across is that just because somebody SAYS something has been "scientifically proven" doesn't mean it has, or that there isn't more to learn, or that it won't be disproven later down the road.

You are describing 'science'. Theories, hypothesis and conjecture are constantly riddled with inquiries, experiments and duplicatable outcomes and results.

There is no settled theory. Only settled law.

 

[Photonic]

Absolutely.

Not that it means that we should discard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But what I'm trying to get across is that just because somebody SAYS something has been "scientifically proven" doesn't mean it has, or that there isn't more to learn, or that it won't be disproven later down the road.

You are describing 'science'. Theories, hypothesis and conjecture are constantly riddled with inquiries, experiments and duplicatable outcomes and results.

There is no settled theory. Only settled law.

Even that is subject to change based on new information. Never forget that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You must have trouble understanding English. My first post clearly stated that Einstein was wrong. How you got that as a statement that he is infallible is beyond me. Perhaps you are really just stupid.

"Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it."
That was your post.
Are you suggesting that this was not sarcastic?

Now, either you are inarticulate, or you are prevaricating.
Which is it?


You have become less civil: "Perhaps you are really just stupid."
A sure sign that you have lost the argument.

 

[Photonic]

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

You must have trouble understanding English. My first post clearly stated that Einstein was wrong. How you got that as a statement that he is infallible is beyond me. Perhaps you are really just stupid.

"Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it."
That was your post.
Are you suggesting that this was not sarcastic?

Now, either you are inarticulate, or you are prevaricating.
Which is it?


You have become less civil: "Perhaps you are really just stupid."
A sure sign that you have lost the argument.

Is that a suggestion that you never had an argument, because you've been uncivil from the start.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

You must have trouble understanding English. My first post clearly stated that Einstein was wrong. How you got that as a statement that he is infallible is beyond me. Perhaps you are really just stupid.

"Holy shit.


Einstein was wrong.


Got it."
That was your post.
Are you suggesting that this was not sarcastic?

Now, either you are inarticulate, or you are prevaricating.
Which is it?


You have become less civil: "Perhaps you are really just stupid."
A sure sign that you have lost the argument.

Whether or not its sarcastic isn't relevant to the question of whether or not its a statement that Einstein "couldn't be in error".

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

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

Only an idiot...and I mean that in the kindest way....would suggest that all inventors and scientists are atheists.

Go ahead, raise your hand.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You must have trouble understanding English. My first post clearly stated that Einstein was wrong. How you got that as a statement that he is infallible is beyond me. Perhaps you are really just stupid.

Is that why you cut off the link before your post?

You, sir, are a liar.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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!

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

Only an idiot...and I mean that in the kindest way....would suggest that all inventors and scientists are atheists.

Go ahead, raise your hand.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Photonic did not state that all scientists are atheists.


You have a bad habit of reading things that aren't there.

 

[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!

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

Only an idiot...and I mean that in the kindest way....would suggest that all inventors and scientists are atheists.

Go ahead, raise your hand.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Know who Alan Turing is? How about Bill Gates?

Einstein also said some other things too.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Einstein does not view religion as you do. Your definition and his collide almost opposite.

I view religion in very much the same way Einstein did, except I do not attribute anything to the word God as he does.

I am an atheistic Scientific Pantheist. I'll be happy to tell you what that is if you wish.

I also am not claiming all scientists are atheist, but all are religious. Not in the way you understand, mind you.

 

[Trajan]

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

paper...plastic, paper, back plastic ....neither.

butter, margarine....butter, back to margarine....

food pyramid....food plate....in 5 years we'll be back to the pyramid...bet on it.

 

[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

paper...plastic, paper, back plastic ....neither.

butter, margarine....butter, back to margarine....

food pyramid....food plate....in 5 years we'll be back to the pyramid...bet on it.

You confuse science with the media.

 

[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

paper...plastic, paper, back plastic ....neither.

butter, margarine....butter, back to margarine....

food pyramid....food plate....in 5 years we'll be back to the pyramid...bet on it.

You confuse science with the media.

Common mistake, considering how powerful the media is these days.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The worst science is more "real" than the best "magic" and "supernatural".

The best science reveals that you have the IQ of a gnat.

 

[Photonic]

The worst science is more "real" than the best "magic" and "supernatural".

The best science reveals that you have the IQ of a gnat.

At least his assertion is backed by reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

At least his assertion is backed by reality.

Quite the opposite.

Bad data is worse than no data. Believing falsehoods with passion leads to belief in idiotic religions like AGW.

 

[Photonic]

At least his assertion is backed by reality.

Quite the opposite.

Bad data is worse than no data. Believing falsehoods with passion leads to belief in idiotic religions like AGW.

Ironic, because you just described every religion in the same statement.