Science isn't All That Reliable...

if you stuck to religion, you wouldnt be using science to post on this forum.

you perhaps would have died at like 20yr old, because you would not have had your shots (distemper, etc)

science it more reliable than religion, every day of the week.

the most reliable aspect of religions is that someone will eventually ask you for money.

 

science is how mankind can understand how to even tell time.

Without science, you would be naked, living in the jungles and perhaps getting doinked by a frustrated bonobo.

your thread is fundementally dishonest. You are claiming science is for atheist when you are alive because of science and posting on this forum because of science............... ie... a hypocrit has opened a thread, simply to rant and it is sick to observe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


fact is, religions will be extinct because mankind will no longer need to lie to themselves. So either you evolve, or just go hang yourself, either way your hell is self imposed.

get over it or you WILL BE JUDGED!!!!!

 

OK............. knowledge evolves.

ie... evolution is not just for species

for ex; mixing 2 colors can create an evolution of the previous, into a new.

just as each generation is an evolution from the previous over most every time

Do you remember, how nasty i can be to idiots?

Or do you want to learn some more?

 

Yes, a word can have two meanings in two different contexts, wow, thanks for educating me.

 

Strange... even the indians knew and still know how to tell time without the use of any scientifically made products.

Not true. We would still have 'fig leaves' to cover our nakedness; or the skin of sheeps and wolves and cows and alligators. Get the point?

As seen immediately above, your responses are fundamentally dishonest. Your claim of anyone being alive as a result of science, is also fundamentally dishonest. Do you KNOW factually that the person you addressed is alive solely because of science? Then you are being dishonest. Just like your dishonest responses are sickening to observe.

"Fact is"? You are a fortune teller now?

Whether anyone 'gets over it or not' is irrelevant, because we will all be judged... including you and your ElectroMagnetic (EM) god that you have taken such a liking to.

 

The most reliable aspect about science is that it eventually needs someone to give it money.

In modern days, most of that money comes from corporations, governments and non-profits.

But for many hundreds of years the only reason science survived is because the Church supported it.

Were it not for the Church, all the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans would have been lost forever.

The Church built all the early universities and paid the professors' salaries.

The Church sponsored the Rennaisance.

Modern atheists who think religion is an enemy of science have no clue what they're talking about. They display their ignorance on this forum every day, and I'm embarassed for them, really.

 

So does Hollywood. It provides quite a bit of detail of who the script writers are, among various other details that most scientific publications tend to leave out. Heck... Hollywood even provides information on most if not all the least important persons were in the production, science journals don't provide that detailed information. Do you even bother reading the credits at the end of a movie?

 

Just like the reliability of the scientific community. The scientific community is constantly on the TV asking for contributions for various 'research'. So much for that little slam against religion.

 

Yes, so many scientists are working on movies nowadays.

 

Well, I am glad you brought that up. I have seen in a few movies where scientists and various scientific institutions have contributed to the making of movies wherein there was an honest scientific notion as the basis of the movie. Those scientists and or scientific institutions were hired as 'consultants'. So, yes, scientists and scientific institutions have engaged in the making of movies.

 

And i am proof, that aint the case.

i combined einstein, confucius, jesus, socrates and about a gazillion others information and not a dollar was taken from anyone ever, to achieve the 'name to know'.

I cant be bought either.

So i have proven to myself, that each and anyone can understand life and live forever, without requiring much of anything except integrity.

ie... how much are you worth?

sorry. All of it comes from people who bought what them things sold. It's basically the same method religion live off of or how they even exist!

i can agree that some disciplines are religiously supported but the majority of the great achievments are far from religiously supported.

galileo, newton, darwin.........are great examples

and thanks

and if church did not control knowledge for almost 2 thousand years, mankind would perhaps be vacationing on the moon by now.

OK...... and they could not spell 'integrity' as it was when church and state separated as perhaps the reason the last 200 years has been the most progressive of science and the population explosive of the human species. ie.... 'we' live longer because of that divide and science has progressed because of that divide

and now even pedophilia can be exposed of the preachers of churches. Now even ted haggarts and warren jeffs's'sss can be exposed for what they are, thanks to science and the integrity of the human species.

OK

they sponsors the inquisitions too

kind of like there are lots of idiots that believe science is the religion of atheist

Science is for all mankind and if it means, the religions will be exposed, then be honest with yourself over lying to sustain a pretty picture of BS taught by beliefs.

ie.. lying to yourself is almost as bad as lying to another about your beliefs, without being a witness of fact. Meaning, you cant lie to another just because you believe something to be true, per most any religon.


Bottom line; science is the seeking of truth and if you know your religion, you should know 'the revealing' is yet to come, so you should be 'seeking truth' as well.

 

Ah, yes, movies nowadays are reknown for their scientific accuracy. You know, such classics as The Core, Armageddon, 2012, GI Joe (sinking ice). Seriously, what movie recently has been made that HAS been scientifically accurate?

 

All this means is that scientists are constantly learning new things, which is good. They're not pretending that they have the answers to every question. Theories are suppose to change, as we learn. So you should expect us to change our views, as time goes on.

On the other hand, the Bible story won't change at all.

 

words are a creation

i didnt say anyone. LIAR!

You are alive and a NO one to much of anyone on this forum.

at this point in time, yes!

for example; were you born in a hospital?

nope, i am capable of comprehension beyond what you are accustomed to.

find me in a lie, ever!

again, you just aint accustomed to such comprehension.

knowledge has always left the unevolving mind to become obsolete

as long as we both agree on something, i will put my life on light over an incorporeal belief, anyday of the week.

ie..... the old books claimed, soon there will be no darkness

 

This must be one of the most ridiculous, outrageus statements I have ever seen on any site:

' The Church sponsored the Rennaisance.'

You obviously have been a very keen student of Goebbels of Nazi infamy who infamously pushed the idea of the Big Lie aka:


'Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It.'

 

The making of movies however is not the only thing that scientists and researchers have been involved in. Here is an interesting article... rather long, but full of resources for the information contained in it.
http://www.americantraditions.org/A... - Destroyers of Judeo-Christian Morality.htm

 

Well, Google isn't working for me or I would post plenty of evidence of what I said.

 

Did I say 'recently'... that seems to be a distraction from what I actually stated. Did I mention the names of any movies? No? Then the list you provide must be your cherry picked ones that might aid your agenda.

Well, let me sink your ship also:
http://factualfootage.com/about_us.html

Make sure you click on to their "why you need us" page.

 

People have been aware of the importance of sanitation for thousands of years. Even before Christ ancient cities were separating waste from fresh water knowing that failing to do so caused disease.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your OP. It reveals what may be the most stunning absence of basic science and history knowledge I've ever seen here, and that's saying something.

 

Well, here is a brief summary of The Age of Enlightenment from Wilekpedia:

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was an elite cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state(my empahasis). Originating about 1650–1700, it was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), and Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) and by mathematician Isaac Newton (1643–1727).

 

Could you please provide a quote for that? I certainly don't hold science up as some sort of deity or replacement for a deity. I have no need for such things.

Religions also change with the times. For example, the church accepting heliocentricism. This is utterly irrelevant since science is a method, not a set of beliefs; the method itself yields increasingly accurate results.

Again, citation. The latter part sounds like an apocryphal story.

They really shouldn't be called scientists. That's mostly just pop history talking. Science as we know it today really didn't get its start until the 17th century, though arguably it was somewhat earlier in the Islamic world. Either way, those proclaiming that the Earth was the center of the universe were usually astrologers and philosophers, not people adhering to the proper scientific method that we recognize today.

That actually came out of greek philosophy, not science or rigorous observation. Calling that 'science' is rather absurd.

As our understanding has widened, our explanations grow more accurate. If the answer is "I don't know", then that is the answer that should rightfully be given--the correct response is not to make up some mythological bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and claim that it's true come hell or high water.

If you'll note, each of your examples is one of increasing specificity and accuracy with respect to what is actually known. Saying "we don't know" in response to a question posed when, in fact, there is no confirmed answer, is a perfectly acceptable and accurate answer. What separates the modern scientists from the earlier philosophers (especially natural philosophers) is that willingness to say "I don't know", rather than make up some garbage to fit some limited data points.

This is a fundamental break from religion and from early philosophy. Religions cannot accept "I don't know" as a valid answer--because everything must fit into their worldview or it threatens the entire worldview. There is no room for ambiguity. If there is no answer they can accept according to dogma, they just say it must be god's will, or some other ludicrously inadequate answer.

The fact that the scientific method provides a means of self-correction is an advantage in the search for truth, because it leads to ever more accurate answers to the questions posed. Religions, on the other hand, doggedly refuse to let go of obviously, factually inaccurate explanations.

Aristotle was not a scientist. He was a philosopher.

Do you know where that belief came from? It wasn't coming from science. It was coming from a near-religious level of faith in one man's opinion on the matter. That belief sure as hell wasn't coming from direct observation or rigorous scientific study of the matter--because once people did start applying the scientific method to medicine, people stopped believing in the humors and started studying what actually goes on. Sadly, it wasn't until the 19th century that people go around to doing that on any large scale.

Factually untrue. The physics behind aerodynamics and an understanding of the basic principles involved were known in the early 19th century. People who understood aerodynamics weren't generally the ones proclaiming that heavier than air flight was impossible--they were merely skeptical that a sufficiently powerful engine could be fitted onto a wing while still being light enough to be lifted.

Even then, lighter than air flight had been known much longer than that.

Could you provide some examples of a widely held belief among the scientific community that spaceflight was impossible. That's something you're going to have to demonstrate.

Actually, the scientists weren't usually the ones saying it was impossible. It was the engineers saying that it couldn't be done with 1980s technology, and the accountants saying that it was far too costly to pursue anyway.

You seem to be confusing the general public and journalists with scientists. All of your examples seem to be examples of the general public being skeptical about ideas that scientists considered possible but impractical or beyond the technical means to achieve in the present.

This notion is almost always false. You're probably talking about global warming denial, but there's plenty of scientists who (wrongly) take the position that anthropogenic climate change is false.

RAND corporation's simulations aren't really indicative of the general viewpoint of scientists. Moreover, that's mostly the domain of statisticians and political scientists.

Thomas Malthus was what we could call today an economist... not a scientist.

More like they realized that it was not, in fact, a disorder. Yes, people were rightly angry about their identity being considered a disorder, but the idea that the "Gay lobby" got that changed is ludicrous. They aren't powerful enough to do that today, much less 30 years ago.

Interesting that you call it fraud when scientists correct themselves, but don't consider it fraud when the church amends its beliefs.

Because the "correlation" is almost entirely culturally oriented. The people who try to tie it to a genetic basis in race are almost always motivated by a pre-existing racist viewpoint. If for no other reason than because they're using a fictional social construct as a basis for comparison to begin with.

Yeah, much better to insist that two plus two must be three, even when you're shown to be wrong. After all, the bible (or, at least, some church's interpretation of the bible) says it must be three, therefore it doesn't matter if the evidence says otherwise.

A worldview that cannot tolerate corrections and amendments is a weak worldview supported only by blind, stubborn faith. It is a lie and serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Also, full of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and idiotic creationism.

Nope, sorry, abiogenesis isn't related to evolution. Wrong right out of the gate.

Oh, a reference to Michael Behe. Wait, isn't he the scientist who introduced "irreducible complexity", which has since been refuted by almost every scientist? Why, yes it is!

Um... what? How is that the opposite of what was just said?

Hmmm, must've been the work of Jesus! No other explanation available!

Nope, sorry, they've been refuted over and over and over again. You must've missed the memo.

The (*)(*)(*)(*)? What point does this have?

Oh good, I'm glad we don't have any bias in this article

This is the most retarded article I've ever read, congratulations. The article then goes on to bash homosexuals for half a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing page. Is this really what you consider a good article?

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*)? What are you even arguing? That Jurassic Park is a better source of scientific data than the actual cladistics system? Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) cares if some movies have SOME factual scientific basis? They aren't a reliable source for science, get over it.

 

It's okay, Blackrook doesn't know what he is talking about, I think we all made that painfully obvious.

 

And the award for dumbest post of the day goes to *drum roll*

Religion said that the Earth was the centre of the universe. When scientists started saying that it wasn't religion persecuted them.

Doctors still drill holes in people's heads. Leeches are still used.

Hundreds of elements eh?

Scientists said that flight was impossible? Yeah right, stop believing (*)(*)(*)(*)ing myths told to you by your local priest. There's these things called BIRDS. Scientists were aware of them.

The premise of this whole thread, something typed out on the product of SCIENCE, is idiotic.

The fact that science goes where the evidence leads, even if it means changing old ideas, is what makes science reliable.