Science Is/As A Religion

[daveman]

Once again, you said I denied something that was true. You have yet to post any evidence. All you've done is post, without any explanation, a link to a post where I deny your lie about "sciencers" which do not exist. You made it up. It was a lie.

Once again, the post you link to says nothing about stupid people on my side. When will you post something to back up your claim that I denied "the fact that there are stupid people on my side"?

Yawn.

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

 

[daveman]

OK. So you didn't say anything about "stupid people who think dark matter exists". I was wrong about that

So what are you claiming I denied? In the post you linked to (without any explanation) the only thing I deny is the beliefs of "sciencers" because "sciencers" don't exist. You just made the term up. IOW, you lied

So, are you going to tell us what true fact I have denied, and support your claim with a quote (and an explanation) or will you do what you usually do, and run away from your own words?

I give up. You win teh internets. You didn't say what you said. Congratulations.

It's my own fault, really. I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.

Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?

If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"

And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?

Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?

 

[sangha]

Yawn.

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish one-liner.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

 

[sangha]

I give up. You win teh internets. You didn't say what you said. Congratulations.

It's my own fault, really. I've read the quote "Never argue with a fool; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but I didn't apply it.

Dave, you falsely claimed that I denied that there were stupid people on my side. Now why don't you back up your words?

If you're going to passive-aggresively continue to claim that I said that, the least you could do is post the quote of mine where I deny that there are stupid people on my side. So far, all you posted was a link to a post where I deny the beliefs of "sciencers"

And while we're at it, will you ever admit that your use of the word "sciencers" was dishonest?

Or will you run away from your words as you are trying to do now?

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

 

[daveman]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Meanwhile:

 

[sangha]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

 

[HUGGY]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Meanwhile:

You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.

 

[daveman]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Once again, dave tries to hide his inability to respond substantively behind a childish taunt.

Dave claimed that "I denied that there are stupid people on my side". Dave can't back it up with a quote of mine where I deny this. All he has is a quote where I deny the existence of "sciencers" because it's a fictional term Dave used because he is dishonest

If sanga didn't declare that everything he disagreed with was a lie, he'd have nothing to say.

 

[daveman]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Meanwhile:

You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.

Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Would everyone please stop calling others liars or dishonest already. If you need help on this subject, click here.

I have not been following the dark matter debate at all, but this appears correct:

Measuring "something" PROVES that there is "something" there to be measured. Scientists have given that "something" a name.

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".

Following your usual trend of getting easily confused if things share any aspect in common, this time you decided to ignore which came first. Let's review, once again. Things like the big bang and evolution are science. They were determined based on observing the physical universe, acquiring reproducible data, and drawing logical conclusions from it. Your "paradigm" is philosophy, which uses scientific concepts to propose an idea that is not actually supported by scientific methods.

With that in mind, it should be obvious to you at this point that the big bang theory is not grounded on the paradigm of cosmic evolution, having not been influenced by it in any way during the formation of the theory. It came about in an independent manner, and was later included in the "paradigm" by philosophers who wanted to include it. Nonetheless, the paradigm is still philosophy. I could similarly create a religion that states God made the Big Bang and Evolution. Just because the philosophy uses scientific knowledge does not make it scientific.

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).

While this pathetic insult is laughable, I can't help but notice you yourself, "expert" in all things paradigm, still haven't been able to define it for us.

Well? What is a "scientific paradigm?" You continue claiming you understand it and insinuating you are scientifically literate, yet you continue to fail to provide evidence to ANYTHING you're saying.

I'll give you a hint though: wikipedia has a portion of an article on what that means, and it too shows you to be clueless. We can similarly use a scientific dictionary to find it means "a pattern that may serve as a model or example." Model, example, pattern. Not truth. Not fact. Not supported understanding. It's a pattern.

Returning to your original point and ignoring the fact that you used the term evolutionary theory completely wrong, it's easy to show how abiogenesis can be the "achiles' heel" of ANY pattern or model. In short: your point is worthless.

And yet there's STILL an easy way for you to prove me wrong: simply show me what published research has been done in the "paradigm" of cosmic evolution. Show me a scientist who has provided evidence that shows THAT model is correct. Show me a single research article whose focus is guided by cosmic evolution.

But you haven't done that.

And you won't.

Because scientists don't publish scientific articles and do scientific experimentation on philosophy.

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

It's like you're almost starting to catch on now by acknowledging it is philosophy of a non-philosophical field. The famous quote regarding the philosophy of science is "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Nevertheless, philosophy is not scientific, nor are its conclusions deemed as scientifically valid by the scientific community. And when I reference the scientific community, I want it to be clear I'm talking about the academic institution which you are clearly of no part.

And the massacre continues unabated.

Watching from a distance, Intense and daveman think to themselves:

"SmarterThanHick and sangha did their best but they're simply no match for José's paroxistic violence".

I'm pretty sure your'e the only one thinking that, based on the massive insecurities you continue to exhibit in this thread.



So let's recap what we have so far:

1. First you egregiously misused the term evolutionary theory, meaning you either had no clue what you were talking about and back-pedaled, or make it a regular habit to use completely inaccurate terms
2. In context, your original post stated that evolutionary theory was somehow broken because it couldn't account for abiogenesis, even though it has nothing to do with abiogenesis
3. You then backpedaled to recenter your focus on a philosophy known as Cosmic Evolution, which is not scientific
4. All the while, you didn't realize that the philosophy of cosmic evolution DOES account for abiogenesis, meaning your original claim was STILL wrong even after the backpedaling
5. You then go on a rather long and insecure rant trying to save face, failing at every opportunity
6. This included claiming that known scientific theories came from your philosophy, when the exact opposite was true
7. Meanwhile, I am capable of supporting every single thing I say, and you have yet to present a single primary literature article on the research behind cosmic evolution

Wow, that's more fail than I've seen in a long time.

 

[HUGGY]

I've backed up my claims. You keep saying you said something different.

Meanwhile:

You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.

Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

 

[daveman]

You two have destroyed this thread..Thanks!.

Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

 

[HUGGY]

Oh, I admit it's no pinnacle of human thought like The List, but it's okay.

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen". You deposit it intentionally. Thanks. Grow up.

 

[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 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.

No.

Scientists look around and see something that does not make sense. They make a hypothesis to explain what they see. They call that hypothesis dark matter, and then see other things that they also cannot explain. While all of these things they cannot explain prove that something is out there it does not prove that that something is dark matter.

I do not have to manufacture an argument when you keep trying to say things that make you look foolish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 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.

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.

 

[daveman]

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen". You deposit it intentionally. Thanks. Grow up.

Y'know, I hear the Ignore function works just dandy for situations like that.

 

[daveman]

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

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.

Well, that and he's just not very bright.

 

[geauxtohell]

As I don't have the time/patience to read through a gajillion posts (most of which will be the same, lame talking points), I'll just jump in here.

It's pretty simple, really:

Science is a man-made venture to describe the natural world. As such, like the law, it is governed by man-made rules like the "Scientific Method".

The rules of science do not permit the idea of a supernatural power to be entertained. Science is mute (neither for nor against) the concept of God.

Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a conflict. However, there still is. While the evolutionists have a few bomb-throwers like Richard Dawkins. Most of the bad actors come from the Creationism/Intelligent Design side of the house.

If anybody truly wants to see how desperate the modern creationists are (and how desperate), read the opinion of the judge at Dover.

If anyone really wants to see an enlightening discussion of evolution, science, and religion; take the time to watch Dr. Ken Miller discuss it here:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/ame]

Every times these threads pop up, I post Dr. Miller's lecture at Case Western. Few take the time to watch it and continue to spout off their silly talking points.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

He thinks you and I are the same person, probably because he is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong.

Well, that and he's just not very bright.

True