Is science a religion?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Yazata, Jan 4, 2020.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Mainstream Thinking , meaning the greater than 50% of " scientists " agree . Which varies with the ology , study .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Then the people that don't know need to make a genuine effort to gain knowledge and education on the relevant subject.
    And of course not everyone can be a brain surgeon, or a pilot, or a cosmologist.
    Thinking is near useless when one has no knowledge of a subject, and those with delusions of grandeur, are deluded.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Priests . When a certain theory is up held because of a " person " , this happens alot in science . The Preachers come out .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    So why are you still posting here pad ?
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have a soft heart river, and need to educate fools.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    About soft hearts . Educate us as best you can pad . From the begining .
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    According to the consensus record it was pulled off by showman and promotor Charles Dawson, who was not a scientist even in those informal and laxly credentialed and prank joke days, acting as either willing minion or central idea haver for museum underling Hinton who had a grudge against his boss Woodward. Woodward was the first scientist to be taken in - the conspiracy part had at most two known members, one a scientist, and perhaps only one, if Woodward some managed to fool Dawson the experienced con man
    Perhaps you think embarrassed and careless scientists never cover ass to forestall or escape public humiliation.
    But how does that explain your choice of 1954? So close to the first peer review via the latest techniques, from that you extrapolate to "science"?
    It turned out to be a recognizable fraud or simplistic confusion by most scientists in the field as soon as the evidence was peer-reviewed.
    Try figuring out what it is, first. It's difficult to "dismantle" what you can't even paraphrase.
    Hint: everything you need is right here.

    Btw: imho the pattern of attack here - this odd attack mode pivot starting in the second or third reply (this one says I have an "entrenched position"(1) about something (2), neither of which they clarify beyond establishing that either one signifies some kind of character flaw - goes back a long way, without ever once afaik having led to reason or relevant response from which I or others might have learned.

    This is an opportunity, in other words, to instruct and argue about evidence and the use of it, about skepticism, about reason itself in the modern and thoroughly politicized age. A lost one to date.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2020
  11. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Yes. It's a damn shame you haven't taken that opportunity. I'll start to take you seriously when you retract your dimissal of Arthur Smith Woodward as a "curator". That remark alone revealed your ignorance of the Piltdown affair and ignorance that you seem to think was addressed by reading the wikipedia article.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    A postscript to Piltdown.

    Piltdown Man hoax findings: Charles Dawson the likely fraudster
    By Katie Pavid
    First published 10 August 2016
    https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2016/august/piltdown-man-charles-dawson-likely-fraudster.html

    Doesn't sound like a grand conspiracy by a number of dishonest scientists. Perhaps a naive desire to "believe" that the find was genuine and no modern methods to falsify the claim at that time.

    All that really counts is that eventually the "find" was exposed as a hoax and scientific integrity restored.

    Unlike the continuing religious creation hoax committed by a vast conspiracy of religious non-scientists out of a desire to "believe".
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Dismissal? It was apparently one reason he - the one working scientist anywhere near the Hoax at its beginning, when Dawson most needed a scientist for cover - was involved. How is that a dismissal?

    Sorry I bothered you. Your claim that a conspiring cabal of scientists was necessary to produce the Piltdown Hoax was my entry point, and apparently the observation that it wasn't produced by a conspiring cabal of scientists is dismissed by observing that Wikipedia supports it - had I known that was going to be the level of argument I would have responded quite differently, and I apologize for my shortsighted mistake.
    You have a chance to educate us all, and certainly me in my ignorance. Why waste it on such poorly supported and unlikely irrelevancies as what you think I seem to think?
     
  14. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    Evolution is not science, a shameless assumption.
    Anyway, creation too is not confirmed to be convincing.
     
    river likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Do look up the full definition of the term "evolution". If this is not clear to you it is one of the most important questions you can ask. The entire Universe is a product of evolution by natural selection, from the first ordering of planetary orbits, to chemical interactions, to the current Westminster dog show.
    It is an evolutionary impossibility.
    There is no beginning (creation) of an "irreducible complexity". It all starts at the simple bottom and evolves to the complex top.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    So, 97% of all scientists in the world who support evolution are wrong and shameless? Perhaps, if they are wrong, then maybe many other things scientists have discovered are wrong, as well. Perhaps, gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat?

    How is it you manage to make that claim? Do you even understand evolution?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Evolution is the name we give certain commonly observed patterns of physical changes in complex systems over time. It's a name for an observed thing.

    The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is the current central and foundational theory of biological science, with major implications and explanatory uses in all other sciences and a good share of modern technological innovation - it explains the above mentioned observations, which before its discovery and/or explication had no adequate explanation. They were mysteries, now they are at least partly understood.
     
  18. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Even if evolution turns out to be wrong it doesn't mean there is a God.

    All this means that humans just don't have the intelligence or the resources to figure out everything about this world.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Evolution is true . Just not as Darwnist think . Slow plodding along changes . Evolution can be both fast and slow .
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Because of covid-19 , I fear that science will become a religion .

    Because those that don't understand the science , look to those that do .
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2020
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The are no "Darwinists", for the same reason there are no "Einsteinists" or "Harveyists" or "Kochists" or "Daltonists".

    The Darwinian Theory of Evolution says little about the rate at which it takes place, beyond the pragmatic observation that each Darwinian evolutionary change takes at least one generation to establish itself.
    In a bacterium that could happen in 20 minutes.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Disagree ; there are Darwinist .

    Highlighted

    Darwin is about slow changes .

    To your last two statements ; Agreed .
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Science , Real Science , is about Theories , Nothing Absolute .

    Science becomes a religion when only one Theory is Presented to the Public . New Thinking is suppressed . Questions ignored .
     
  24. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Science , Real Science , is about Theories , Nothing Absolute .

    Science becomes a religion when only one Theory is Presented to the Public . New Thinking is suppressed . Questions ignored .
     

Share This Page