Science Is/As A Religion

[sangha]

I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.

I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity

If you've got teh guts, start a thread instead of whining about it in a thread, you blowhard

 

[asterism]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

Such a closed mind.

I can accept science as real, tangible, and true while at the same time also being religious. But then I'm aware that lots of things we have today would certainly be "magical" for people 200 years ago.

 

[sangha]

Nothing in science is ever really "known". There are no "beliefs". What there is, is "skepticism". Science is all about "skepticism".

"Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.

Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".

The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense. Turn science into a belief. Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong". While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.

There are those that tell you that skepticism is not permitted in Religious Belief's, there are those that would tell you it is required. Which have you come to know to be true in your time on Earth? You are arguing Ego, and what we think we know. I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to. Why chain and lock everything in all the time so quickly, only to find we measured wrong after the fact? Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in. Life is wonder, no? Alway's new shit on the horizon. There are different parts to our nature. You need not deny one to advance another.

Our perspectives are limited, yet our perspectives change, grow, fill in.

That's science, NOT religion.

I do believe in Absolutes. I just think they are not alway's what we think or limit them to.

Does this look a little confusing? Because it does to me. "I believe in absolutes unless they change"?

Your mistake is in think that Intense's words have any meaning. They are nothing more than grandiose pronouncements designed to sound profound while offering nothing of significance

 

[asterism]

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.

Or perhaps an arrogant denial of our current limitations in collecting and evaluating evidence. Such a small mind, so not conducive to actual discovery.

 

[rdean]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Guess what: thermodynamics can't explain gravity! Particle physics is refuted!

You'll note that science has its own "God of the gaps" they just call it dark matter.

Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.

When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out. The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along. One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp. Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted. So he was just trying to get a little attention.

You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613

 

[asterism]

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?

 

[sangha]

THE MODERN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM COMPRISES:

THE BIG BANG THEORY:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE UNIVERSE'S EARLY DEVELOPMENT, AKA, EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE IT WENT FROM EXTREME SIMPLICITY (HIGH ENERGY) TO COMPLEXITY (FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, ETC...)

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THEORY OF GALAXY FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES, AKA, EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES BECAUSE IT WENT FROM MERE HYDROGEN AND HELIUM GAS AND DUST TO A COMPLEX GRAVITATIONAL STRUCTURE.

Galaxy formation and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THEORY OF SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION AND EVOLUTION:

(FIELD: COSMOLOGY) IDEM

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (See Shanga, Hick??: your beloved theory is a mere subset of the overarching evolutionany scientific paradigm)

(FIELD: BIOLOGY) SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT EXPLAINS SPECIATION. IT EXPLAINS HOW COMPLEX SPECIES ON EARTH AROSE FROM SIMPLER ONES.

THE EVOLUTION OF HOMO SAPIENS:

(FIELD: ANTHROPOLOGY)

THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN CIVILISATIONS, SOCIETIES:

(FIELDS: ANTHROPOLOGY, HISTORY, SOCIOLOGY, ETC...)

No you moron. Just because they contain the word "evolution" that doesn't mean that one is a subset of the other.

Many things "evolve". Cultures evolve. Art evolves. A persons thinking on a specific issue can evolve. That is how the word "evolution" is being used in all of the examples you gave, but one: "The Theory of Evolution"

"The Theory of Evolution" (TTE) has absolutely nothing to do with how a solar system "evolves". The "evolution" of solar systems has nothing to do with TTE. Similarly, the processes by which TTE works (ex natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc) have absolutely nothing to do with the "evolution" of solar systems.

Thanks for showing us that your ignorance is not limited to TTE. You also have a problem with the way the English language can give different meanings to the same word when used in different contexts.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.

You misunderstand. I don't care what your motives are. Honestly, I don't even know what they are because I didn't read that copied and pasted text. No one did. The point I'm trying to make is that you should take it upon yourself to state arguments in your own words. Copying and pasting is an ineffective form of communication here as no one reads it. Ever. Doesn't matter whether you're arguing for or against the same things as me. Using your own words will make your arguments stronger.

We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist?

I'm fairly certain we have the ability to prove cold exists. We can qualify, quantify, and alter temperature. We know how it works, and that it works, and we use that information in practical ways. You may want to rethink that.

I'd like to have 10 minutes alone with SmarterThanHick and sangha.

I promise the whole Board I wouldn't kill them, just mutilate them due to their stupidity

Unfortunately for you, we live in a civilized world where things like facts and justice prevail. Your teenage physical impulsive nature is amusing to me, especially on the internet. Maybe it will be an effective problem solving tool for you one day, but until then I recommend you attempt to best me with factual information.

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (how matter became life) as Hick and sangha correctly stated.

BUT THE LACK OF A SOLID ABIOGENESIS THEORY IS A MAJOR GAP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM!!!!

Which you continue to fail to realize is not an actual scientific theory or accepted by the scientific community. It is an unsupported concept. It is not proven to exist whatsoever, and it has nothing to do with why you were originally wrong. In short: it's not real. I don't quite think you've realized or accepted that fact. It was a nice distraction in your failed attempt to backpedal, but you're still wrong.

Did you even bother reading the wikipedia article you cited? Did you overlook that it doesn't meet basic standards and even reiterates what I just said? You proved yourself wrong. Hilarious.

 

[sangha]

The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.

Only a wingnut would think it's logical to think something exists even if there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that it exists.

In wingnut world, it's true if you can't prove it's wrong

You just find a bigger logic fail than that

 

[rdean]

Atheism is a "lack" of belief in mysticism, the supernatural and the occult.

Or perhaps an arrogant denial of our current limitations in collecting and evaluating evidence. Such a small mind, so not conducive to actual discovery.

It takes a "small mind" to study and learn?

But it takes a "big mind with an expanded consciousness" to believe without a shred of evidence?

I have car you might like to buy. It's "Lemon Yellow" and in superb condition.

 

[Sunni Man]

When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out. The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along. One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp. Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted. So he was just trying to get a little attention.

You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.

Tell us the full truth rdean.

We all know that little boy was you.

Cause you are still craving attention just like you did as a little child.

 

[rdean]

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?

Different "sciencers" believe in different things.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

 

[sangha]

Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...

the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!

You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong, you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'

And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

did you see the quote from Dawkins?

How about one from Darwin himself:

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library


"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"


Do you have an explanation?


No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.

fossilization is a rare event


How many t-rexes lived? How many fossils do we have?

How many cats have lied in history? How many fossilized/petrified/naturally preserved cats do we stumble across?

An excellent point to refute those who say, "where is the evidence?" However, it's not supportive to those who claim they work only on known evidence since you are saying lack of evidence doesn't disprove a theory.

You obviously missed the point. One wingnut claimed that fossilization was common. That post wasn't meant to prove anything about evolution. It was meant to prove that the claim "fossilization is common" was wrong.

IOW, he is not claiming that "lack of evidence disproves a theory". He is saying "the rarity of fossils disproves the claim that fossils are common"

 

[rdean]

That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

The point is that our perspectives are limited. To presume something either doesn't exist or to prescribe limitations on what we know nothing about, is pretty short sighted and heading for a fall.

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

For example, I could argue here that if you could stop movement at the molecular level, without removing the object, it would still exist without motion, therefore it would theoretically still exist and be more than nothing. The original argument in the quote is that cold does not exist because we are not capable of measuring it. True or not true, it would seem that what is yet lacking is our ability, our knowledge of the study. I'm not trashing Science, but preconceived notion. Does Cold exist? Is Cold the absence of something? Is it more than that? If Cold does not exist, is it nothing? Does Nothing exist? See where this leads? Do we continue to stay derailed chasing our tails on presumption or continue in discovery?

You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat". Heat is energy. Cold is "lack of energy".

 

[HUGGY]

Your ignorance is impressive! That kind of stupid takes hard work!

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

I believe in human curiosity. I believe in the scientific method. I believe all the mysteries will eventually be solved if we look long and hard enough at the questions. I believe that our very survival as a species depends upon it.

 

[sangha]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

Such a closed mind.

I can accept science as real, tangible, and true while at the same time also being religious. But then I'm aware that lots of things we have today would certainly be "magical" for people 200 years ago.

If you replace the word "magical" with "spiritual", rdean would be right. rdeans' mistake is his lack of belief in spirituality

 

[asterism]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.

Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance. Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.

Nothing in science is ever really "known". There are no "beliefs". What there is, is "skepticism". Science is all about "skepticism".

"Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.

Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".

The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense. Turn science into a belief. Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong". While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.

I'll remember that when you speak fondly of AGW skeptics. As for the notion that skepticism isn't allowed in religious beliefs, I use Jesus Christ and Mohammed as exhibits. Neither of them thought the Jews were on the correct path and now they each have billions of followers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.

and yet the entire reason we even have the concept of dark matter is because scientists are able to measure its effects on the physical universe. We don't know exactly what it is or exactly how it works, but we do know THAT it works. There is evidence of it all over space.

You can't say the same for religion. There is a noticeable difference in magic tricks when exhibited to a child or an adult: adults know there's an explanation for it, even if they don't know the explanation themselves, whereas children think it's really magic. Science may seem to have its fair share of tricks, but it's best to avoid acting like a child when referencing them.

The reason we have dark matter is science cannot explain the universe as it exists. If we could measure the actual effects of dark matter we could prove it exists. Pointing to something we cannot explain as evidence of something we cannot see is either circular reasoning, or it is faith, is doing the depending on who talking. Dark energy and dark matter, it they exist, cannot be found because our assumptions about how the universe works make it impossible to do so. That means we will either always be reduced to pointing at things we cannot explain and claim that is evidence of something else we cannot explain, or we will eventually learn that our underlying assumptions about the universe is wrong.

Since you are describing religion using the exact same terms I can definitely say the same thing. I am just well informed enough to understand that sometimes science cannot explain everything.

 

[asterism]

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

That is a Conclusion based on a Theory, based on our ability to measure heat, not lack of it. This Theory is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know. Because something remains a mystery to us we can just as easily presume that because we are limited, in our ability, something does not exist? We acknowledge that we do not have the ability to prove cold exists. Does not cold exist? Our science is limited, our perspective is limited. Does motion cause heat? What would lack of motion at a molecular level cause?

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

Can your conclusion be proven?

 

[rdean]

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

I believe in human curiosity. I believe in the scientific method. I believe all the mysteries will eventually be solved if we look long and hard enough at the questions. I believe that our very survival as a species depends upon it.

I believe in some of those things.

I don't have any mystical beliefs so for me, there is no question on whether or not they will be "solved". I "trust" the scientific method rather than see it as a "belief". I think of "speed limits" as a "good thing", but I don't consider them "beliefs". I don't give them that much thought, unless I get a ticket for going too fast.

I guess I don't really think too much about "beliefs", but rather, things I trust, some more and some less, but all with "reservations".