Science Is/As A Religion

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Jose is not the only wingnut who wants to hide his stunning ignorance and lack of evidence with childish taunts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to point out that QW is still to much of a wussy boy to post any evidence that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and why

Point it out as often as you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He is not being petty. He merely pointed out that your "permission" to mock is not the result of your having a thick skin; it's because you know you got pwned and you can't stop anyone from pointing out your idiocy

But at least you were honest about it when challenged. That puts you a bit above most wingnuts

But you were not "just wrong", You were stupendously wrong.

Where did he say anything about anyone's skin?

 

[sangha]

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

That only proves that a "belief in God" exists. It does not prove that God exists, which is what was asked for

Since you have a hard time with context, please point out where rdean asked for proof that God exists after I pointed out that the effects of belief in God are measurable.

It was the post where rdean asked for you show the effects of Gods existence. Instead of responding with any evidence of this God Effect, you posted something about the effects of believing in God, which even you admit, is not the same thing.

rdean never asked you to show the effects of believing in god. You're just too dumb to understand the question

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.

I agree with what you just said, but you disagreed with what you just said when I said it in an earlier post. I said that measuring a belief in God only proves a belief in God exists. It doesn't prove that God exists. You responded that I was half right

I did not.

 

[sangha]

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

Jose is not the only wingnut who wants to hide his stunning ignorance and lack of evidence with childish taunts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to point out that QW is still to much of a wussy boy to post any evidence that scientists believe that dark matter exists, and why

Point it out as often as you want.

OK

QW has still not posted anythiing to back up his lies. Instead, he tucks his tail and runs away from the subject.

 

[rdean]

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 never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.

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.

This thread is now officially jumped the shark, rdean has ionvoked the dreaded Republicans to prove he is loosing.

What you said:

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.

Then you posted a site where they measure belief and said:

I never said that belief in God proved anything. I just pointed out that measuring something does not prove something else, and I am guessing you agree with me about that.

Who even knows why you continue to write such nonsense. Measuring "something" PROVES that there is "something" there to be measured. Scientists have given that "something" a name. Dark matter. Perhaps you should write a paper and submit it to a couple of science journals and explain to them what it should be called.

You are desperately trying to manufacture an argument so you can have one of your "Ah Ha!" moments. The problem is you are the only one going "Ah Ha!"

Well, go ahead with that "Ah Ha!" belief and measure it. Tell us what it proves.

 

[sangha]

I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"

But he can't say what isn't right

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say " I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day." which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

 

[sangha]

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.

The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say " I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day." which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.

 

[daveman]

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

Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?

I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion

Try a different lie

You're denying the truth, then. And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

But that's nothing new. Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here? If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.

 

[sangha]

Then why do you refuse to admit that stupid people share your beliefs?

I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion

Try a different lie

You're denying the truth, then. And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

But that's nothing new. Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here? If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.

So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?

I'm sure we could all use the laughs

 

[daveman]

The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say " I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day." which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

 

[Ropey]

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

Sangha =

 

[daveman]

I don't deny it. I only deny that it's in any way relevant to this discussion

Try a different lie

You're denying the truth, then. And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

But that's nothing new. Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here? If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.

So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?

I'm sure we could all use the laughs

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

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

Now, pout some more! Stamp your feet! Claim you're teh winnar!

And call me a liar one more time. That shit never gets old. In fact, I'm considering registering Democrat now.

 

[sangha]

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?

 

[sangha]

You're denying the truth, then. And you can stamp your feet and insist it's irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

But that's nothing new. Really, dood, if your beliefs are so fragile they won't tolerate exposure to differing views, why are you here? If you're expecting everyone to agree with you so you don't get scared, you're going to be disappointed.

So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?

I'm sure we could all use the laughs

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

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

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

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

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

 

[daveman]

Once again, a wingnut tries to hide his inability to respond substantively by posting childish insults.

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?

Here, for one, you childish little git.

You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.

Now, quick! Pretend I didn't just prove my point!

 

[daveman]

So you think it is relevant? Care to share your logic on this one?

I'm sure we could all use the laughs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[José]

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

One is essentially fact. The other is guesswork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sangha]

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?

Here, for one, you childish little git.

You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.

Now, quick! Pretend I didn't just prove my point!

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

Once again, the Daveman has lied, and lied badly

Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.

You're lying.

I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​

Now I see what the problem is. You're too stupid to realize the difference between "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" and "Evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origin of life"

You STILL have not admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life

Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution

You're lying.

I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​

If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.

Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers"