Science Is/As A Religion

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you had to lie in order to make your point

Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it

Wrong.

They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.

If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.

Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.

I never said it wasn't a hypothesis. You said that I said that but I never did. What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter". Something exists. Something is affecting the light.

Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment". Why? Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.

Go ahead. Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself. Personally, I think it's hilarious. Gives me a good "chuckle".

Are you being overly sensitive rdean? This post was not addressed to you, so anything you think I said to you was actually said to someone else. You say enough things I can beat you up over so that I do not have to put words in your mouth in order to do so. Am I free to actually beat up Sangha for his insistence that we know this stuff exists because we can see it does stuff we can't explain?

 

[Intense]

You left out the part about believing that cold exists the way heat does

Here is where you are shown to be disingenuous again. I do not believe cold exists or does not exist solely on the basis of you not having the ability to measure it. It is you that are acting as if the world is flat here.

 

[sangha]

We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.

You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.

You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??

Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?

So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?

See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context.

I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.

Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.

Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?

You see? When you post in complete English sentences, you are understood. When you try to be clever (which you arent) and use some of form of discourse, you fail.

And if you didn't use the term sciencers, I apologize for saying you did. However, I am going to go back and check because you can't be trusted. And speaking of trust, let's get to the central lie you've been repeating over and over while working hard to not post anything to support your disgusting lies

You say "Scientists believe that dark matter exists"

Please back up your lie by identifying these scientists. Please post links which prove that these scientists do believe that dark matter exists and why

Or just admit that you're so dishonest and that you just made it up so you could avoid admitting you were wrong?

 

[daveman]

No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.

As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.

So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.

I used to debate "evolutionists" on Orkut and most of my time there was spent in explaining to them how evolution actually works so that I could point out why it is not an all encompassing theory. Some of them are still running around claiming that evolution is absolute proof that God does not exist. Funny thing is they are right, the God they do not believe in does not exist, that is not proof that God does not exist though.

Sangha's going to say you made that up because he can't accept the fact that stupid people share his beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter". Did you bother to visit the site? If they can "map it", then something exists.

We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.

We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Measure the effects? Examples?

There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.

'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian

 

[sangha]

I guess I am simple-minded. What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.

What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?

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

Who says that they do, asterism? You speak as if teaching science will impair faith in God, but I dun see how.

The two -- faith and science -- serve different needs. Why would meeting one satisfy the other?

No one says that they do. asterism, like many christians, lie when they don't have any facts to support them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you had to lie in order to make your point

Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it

Wrong.

They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.

If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.

Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.

You are lying. You said

Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists

Right there you say that scientists believe that dark energy exists. Too bad you have nothing to back up your lies with.

Scientists do not BELIEVE that dark matter exists. Some scientists SUSPECT that dark matter exists.

Didn't you just claim that we know everything about it? Yet you think I am lying when I say scientists believe in it.

 

[sangha]

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

That's your argument? What people believed hundreds of years ago?

No, my argument is that scientists are people, and just as likely to cling to a belief despite evidence as anyone else. I then provided evidence to back up that belief. If you want more modern evidence of it just read about the problems Pasteur had when he advocated the germ theory to his fellow doctors.

THAT'S your point??!!!!

In that case, you've earned the Tshirt

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No I am not.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Just because you have a problem with the English language it does not mean everyone else does.

You dishonestly left out the other definition of atheism because it proves you wrong

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Just because you have a problem with honesty it doesn't mean everyone else is going to fall for your lies

No, I left it out in the hope that you would jump on it and prove yourself a fool. Thanks for cooperating.

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Disbelief is a belief, not the lack of one.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Actually, we can't measure cold. We measure temperature, which is a measure of heat.

Sorry you're right. Poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify. We can't measure "cold" any more than we can measure "warmth". These are both man made relativistic ideas based on the amount of heat, which we CAN measure. This thereby allows us to qualify "warm" and "cold" indirectly by measuring heat, so that you can look at a thermometer if asked "how cold is it outside" and give an answer. Indirect, but qualified and quantified.

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

Actually you have it exactly backwards. Please go see wikipedia on both of those.

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

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. An apple and a car can both be red, but that doesn't mean they have common structures. 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. If you want to reference one for an argument, I would recommend the former, but you keep going back to the latter as if it helps you in some way. How naive.

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

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

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".

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?

You see unlike you, science uses evidence to support things. So, try not to hurt yourself supporting this claim of yours.

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

Your insecurities are amusing. Nonetheless I feel it's necessary to inform you that this is the internet, and as such, threats of mutilation or vague childish mockery only makes you look like a larger moron in the context of me obliterating every point you make. But please continue, your inability to debate me with evidence and this need to resort to further stupidity amuses me.

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

Do you really want to compare today's scientific methods and standards with a church ruled strong-arm of reason from half a millennium ago? Here's a hint to help answer your question: because people who went against the church were IMPRISONED and TORTURED.

Let me know if you have questions.

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

After failing to backpedal and squirm out of your stupidity, you decided it was high time to tuck your tail between your legs and run away. Good job. Next time you want to enter an argument with me, make sure you have that pesky thing called evidence. Otherwise, I recommend you avoid hitting the reply button.

By "evolutionary theory" I was reffering to the general, all encompassing scientific paradigm according to which the whole universe (including life) moves gradually from lower to higher levels of complexity.

Yes, you've said this before, and I will once again point out: "evolutionary theory" is a set concept referring to this article which meets Wikipedia's standards. It does not refer to anything else, including other non-scientific concepts that have the same words mixed into their names. The scientific community as a whole accepts the theory of evolution as accurate.

Now let's see how that pertains to your original post in this thread, which states: "The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory." It should be clear to everyone at this point that the reference to "evolutionary theory" there is that set theory I just linked, and not any other term. You could similarly say the origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heels in abiogenesis ideation, or chili dog formation, or ANY OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT, including but not limited to your "cosmic evolution" which was started by a philosopher, not a scientist, over a thousand years ago.

Nonetheless the end result is as follows:
The THEORY OF EVOLUTION remains intact and accurate without such "Achiles' heels" whatsoever, and is not refuted by any evidence found to date. For creationists, this theory directly contradicts their belief system. Nevertheless this topic has nothing to do with the opinion regarding "cosmic evolution", which remains unsupported and has no evidence. Perhaps you need to better understand the differences between science and philosophy.

Would you like to continue making the same wrong point again? I'm happy to keep shooting you down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

I said something stupid, mock at will.

The concepts sound magical when people try to argue that the observational data proves the hypothesis. Scientists do not do that, but they are still at a loss to actually explain these concepts because our knowledge of the universe does not include an understanding of these concepts. I have said elsewhere that there are only a few physicists that begin to understand this, and the rest of us have to take it on faith. Since I am completely certain that you are not the one of the people who understand this, any attempt you make to claim that you are taking this on any basis other than faith is going to fall short.

That makes these concepts as magical to you as they are to me, even if you refuse to admit it.

Just because the facts seem magical to you, that doesn't mean the facts seem magical to anyone else.

They certainly seem magical to you, or you would not be trying to claim you said something the opposite of what you said.

 

[daveman]

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

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

Ahem.

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.

--

Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010). He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​

Looks like it's not a lie.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter". Did you bother to visit the site? If they can "map it", then something exists.

We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.

We can measure the "belief in God" because "belief in God" is something that exists. However, the only thing that is proven to exist is a "belief in God"

Gods' actual existence is unproven and unprovable.

You are almost right.

 

[sangha]

You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?

Next time, just ask the question in English?

And I've already explained how evolution refutes creationism, so it would seem that you're the one with the reading comprehension issues. Try to keep up

But as long as I have your attention, can you explain why you said that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and then contradict yourself and say that scientists don't believe that dark matter exists?

No, you proved that evolution disproves the statement that humans were created as is at some point in the past. Since I have to point out the obvious to you, that does not disprove creationism, which is the belief that the universe, and everything in it, was created. Why should a Hindu creationist believe in the biblical account of creation, even if they believe that the Earth is 5000 years old?

The problem here is that you are attempting to stake out a claim based on positions you are making up for other people, and that, in truth, all you are accomplishing is making yourself look ignorant. Different people believe different things, and it is possible that God, if He did create everything, set the universe up to evolve us in His image.

For one thing, I do not believe in the existence of Hindu Creationists

Secondly, if creationism is the belief that the universe, and everything in it (which I assume includes humans) were created, then the evolution of humans directly contradicts the creationist claim that humans were created, and not evolved

Thirdly, as it is with many topics, you don't know what you're talking about. Creationism is a belief that the universe, and everything in it (including humans) were created by a supernatural being. Again, evolution refutes this inane claim

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said something stupid, mock at will.

You attempted to use your aggressively stupid post as a launching point to mock me. It's certainly not my fault you ended up looking like a dumbass in doing so.

I said you could mock, so feel free. Being petty about just proves you are taking all this personally. I, on the other hand, was just wrong.

 

[rdean]

We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the measurements they get. That means those measurements cannot be used to prove that dark matter exists. If you understood basic logic you would understand that without me having to explain it to you.

We can also measure the effects of believing in God, does that prove God exists?

Measure the effects? Examples?

There are a lot of science journals that discuss the effects of belief and brain activity, here is one to get you started.

'God spot' researchers see the light in MRI study | Science | The Guardian

Apples and oranges. What they are measuring is "belief". That belief could be any belief. If they believed "holding a four leaf clover" brought "good things", then why wouldn't they get the same results?

Proof of the existence of "God" has to be more than just a belief. That leaves us back where we started.

I believe the FACT that Republicans believe government is bad and government fails at everything is a FACT because when they are in power, they make sure it fails. That proves their belief. The evidence is that every time Republicans are in power, the economy falters and the country falls apart.

 

[sangha]

Actually I am trying to be real tolerant and patient with you. I'm curious as to what fuels you, not only the hate and bitterness, but the drive. Should you ever overcome your handicap, I you will actually have allot to contribute. Are you redeemable, that is the first question. I know, if you don't, and I'm patient, sometimes. Sometimes, I lose patience, but we're good for now. I'm human too, yet find myself in a position where I have to put the interest of the Site above my own personal interest, it would be wrong to see that as an act, it is an obligation. Further, what I have found personally here, is that when I strike out at someone, the unintended consequence is that it offends people I care about, on both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I hold back, as best as I can. You should give it some thought too. Your style corrupts your message.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong.

They observed some data that did not fit their theories. They hypothesized an explanation, and have offered theories to explain the existence of Dark Matter. To date no theory has been corroborated by experiment or observation. Scientists do not point to something they cannot explain and claim it proves something they made up to explain it.

If you will check back through the various explanations of the scientific method you will see that I am the one that is right here, and that Dark Matter is only a belief. No one knows if it really exists, or if some other explanation will eventually be found to explain the observations.

Why don't you post this in your thread about lies told by wingnuts? It will give people who are not reading this thread a chance to see how ignorant you are.

I never said it wasn't a hypothesis. You said that I said that but I never did. What I did say was that "SOMETHING" is causing a lensing effect and scientists refer to it as "Dark Matter". Something exists. Something is affecting the light.

Not every hypothesis has a "corresponding experiment". Why? Because it may be impossible to preform such an experiment with our current level of technology.

Go ahead. Keep trying to beat up on me if it makes you feel better about yourself. Personally, I think it's hilarious. Gives me a good "chuckle".

This is the lie I've been referring to. QW continually and habitually keeps referring to some mythical people who believe that dark matter exists. Now he's lying about you believing in it.

I wonder if QW will ever defend his own claims by identifying who these fictional believers in dark matter are?

Funny.

Until I managed to get it through your had that I was right you were one of the mythical people that believed dark matter exists, and that we know all about it. Then you jump on rdean, who admitted the hypothetical nature from the start, and try to pretend you believed the same thing.

I think that qualifies as a lie.

 

[sangha]

It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.

I'm not going to bother responding to your other posts before this one -- it's clear you're more than happy arguing your side AND my side. My participation is not required.

Nevertheless, I don't have to make stuff up.

That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.

I also explained that, but you're incapable of admitting that there are stupid people on your side, despite the overwhelming evidence.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out (again) that the definition of "lie" is NOT "something a leftist disagrees with".

So your point is that there are stupid people on both sides. You've definitely earned the costume

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a complete idiot!! Why cant you post in complete sentences?? Is something that simple too much for your little pea brain.

You say "We do not"...We do not "WHAT??"" We do not know that dark matter exists? That "no educated person" knows that dark matters exists??

Then why did you say that scientists (actually you said "sciencers" and I expect you to use that word to weasal out) DO BELIEVE that dark matter exists? Are you saying the scientists are not educated?

So now your argument is that "some people" say that it proves dark matter exists? Once again, you're relying on lies and fictional "sciencers"?

See, it was a complete sentence, you actually figured out what I was talking about by using context.

I never used the word sciencers, so any attempt by you to discredit my posts by referring to it is a lie.

Scientists believe that dark matter exists, they do not know it exists. If you do not understand the difference between belief and knowledge it might explain why you think we know what black matter, whatever you think that is, exists and that we know everything about it.

Are you going to try to use more lies in an attempt to make me look stupid?

You see? When you post in complete English sentences, you are understood. When you try to be clever (which you arent) and use some of form of discourse, you fail.

And if you didn't use the term sciencers, I apologize for saying you did. However, I am going to go back and check because you can't be trusted. And speaking of trust, let's get to the central lie you've been repeating over and over while working hard to not post anything to support your disgusting lies

You say "Scientists believe that dark matter exists"

Please back up your lie by identifying these scientists. Please post links which prove that these scientists do believe that dark matter exists and why

Or just admit that you're so dishonest and that you just made it up so you could avoid admitting you were wrong?

Dark Matter Proof Found, Scientists Say

The guy is obviously wrong about the evidence, but he believes it.