Science Is/As A Religion

[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?

You don't know what you're talking about

For one thing, there is no such thing as "sciencers". At the very least, try to avoid making up your own words with your own "daffynitions", ok?

And no one believes "there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe" Some people don't believe in God, but your explanation is nothing but bullshit

 

[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.

Can your conclusion be proven?

Yes, we call it "outer space".

 

[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?

You don't know what you're talking about

For one thing, there is no such thing as "sciencers". At the very least, try to avoid making up your own words with your own "daffynitions", ok?

And no one believes "there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe" Some people don't believe in God, but your explanation is nothing but bullshit

"Daffynitions". I like that. I won't "Refudiate" it.

 

[asterism]

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.

Quite poorly, too.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

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

Looks like I struck a nerve.

 

[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?

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

The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"

Answer - christians lie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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]

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?

Yes, it can be scientifically proven

 

[asterism]

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.

I can take some things on Faith and I can take other things on evidence. I can also be a skeptic to both. I cannot prove conclusively that my wife truly loves me, but I still believe it. I cannot prove my kids won't be serial killers, but I believe it.

Gravity? Proven enough for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species. That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch. They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.

Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.

Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity

Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism

But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid

Confident dumb people - Boing Boing

Does it?

 

[sangha]

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.

Quite poorly, too.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)

We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.

Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.

 

[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?

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

I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively. That doesn't make either side correct.

That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you. You have faith in something even you don't understand. How funny is that?

 

[sangha]

Odd, then, that I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.

Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity

Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism

But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid

Confident dumb people - Boing Boing

Does it?

Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.

 

[sangha]

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

I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively. That doesn't make either side correct.

That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you. You have faith in something even you don't understand. How funny is that?

Why did you say that "sciencers" (a made up term) believe that God doesn't exist when you know that is a lie?

 

[Intense]

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.

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 are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.

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.

This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.

 

[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.

We know when something exists when we can "measure" it. Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.

The same with Dark Matter. We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect. The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.

Scientists "live" for questions. They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day. The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons. They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".

Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News

You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.

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 because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.

Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).

Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.

And how effective was it at that goal. I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it. Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.

This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.

We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.

 

[sangha]

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.

We know when something exists when we can "measure" it. Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.

The same with Dark Matter. We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect. The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.

Scientists "live" for questions. They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day. The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons. They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".

Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News

You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.

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 because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.

Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).

Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.

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

 

[Intense]

STAH didn't say anything about your motives. You're lying about what STAH to hide your inability to post an idea using your own words. If you had a brain, you'd make your point using your own words instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you

Sangha, Your bullshit and name calling is thread killing. The reason I posted the Link was to bring the thread back on track. It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory, unadulterated with your bullshit. I am giving you fair warning about you assumptions, with everyone you come in contact with. Knock it off. You want to add to a discussion learn to do it with courtesy, and stop repeating yourself 50 times over. Stop the Bitching, and contribute to the advancement of the conversation. Stop derailing threads with your bullshit. It is ugly, and not as popular as you imagine it to be.

Once again for the intense moron:

STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent

You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"

That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.

Once again for the intense moron:

Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?

STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent

What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.

You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"

Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.

 

[sangha]

We are in disagreement here. I read Every Post I find interest in including Quotes and Links. I'm sure that I am not alone in that. Feel free to utilize your own style, it is wrong however to have expectations on anyone else. As for my intent, it was to put the Thread back on track. Nothing more and nothing less.

And how effective was it at that goal. I think I'm the only one who responded to it, and that was to say I didn't read it. Again, I think you should rethink your tactic, because I know you have the ability to make stronger points, and that didn't accomplish it.

This is a carry over from another Thread involving JB. I too would believe that just because we cannot measurer cold, it would more suggest that it is more related to limited ability and perspective, than cold not existing. The message is about us getting caught up in absolutes, rather than accepting our limited knowledge.

We can measure cold though. I don't quite understand your point.

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

 

[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.

Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.

I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.

BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth. We can only see the distortion of dark matter when we can look at the universe as a whole and see that the gravitic distortion of light is measurably greater than can be accounted for by adding up all the matter in the universe. That results in scientists hypothesizing dark matter, matter that cannot be detected yet still creates gravity.

Since the LHC has recently shown that String Theoy's predictions of microscopic black holes may be wrong we are even further at a loss to explain the observational data.