Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?

I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?

No.

It all depends on what religion you are talking about. If you are talking about Christianity...

Thats just Christians and Science.

There is a conflict, Establsihed science is centered on materialism (Everything can be explained in terms of matter). While Religion itself revolves around vitalism ( belief in exsistences, that surpass the physical life).

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
There is a conflict, Establsihed science is centered on materialism (Everything can be explained in terms of matter). While Religion itself revolves around spiritualism ( belief in exsistences, that surpass the physical life).

There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

Originally posted by Regret
There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

I believe that much of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet. However, I am only talking about Buddhism, not Christianity.

When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.

- Bertrand Russell -

Originally posted by Regret
There cannot be existence outside of physical life. If something exists there is something to it. It is merely beyond our scientific abilities. Thus the "spiritual" is merely beyond our abilities to deal with. To claim otherwise is foolhardy on science's part, and in my experience they do not claim that they know everything.

Well since you do not represent the scientific community you cannot speak for them, honestly there is a conflict.Any scientific feild that ventures out of the established materialistic view is considered a psuedo science. so it's safe to say Science vs religion is really Vitalism vs Materialism.


Originally posted by Storm
When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force.

- Bertrand Russell -

Right, I'm sure no man of science has never fought each other because of different views.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Well since you do not represent the scientific community you cannot speak for them, honestly there is a conflict.Any scientific feild that ventures out of the established materialistic view is considered a psuedo science. so it's safe to say Science vs religion is really Vitalism vs Materialism.

You are rather narrow in your view. If something exists then it is in the realm of science. If there is anything to religion in any way then it must have some form of substance/material. If any religion is true, then the "spiritual"/supernatural is merely material aspects that follow laws we are as of yet unaware of.



If there is a phenomena then it can be studied through science. Religion is not exempt from this. It is not in conflict, it merely claims that it is capable of observing this phenomena while science has yet to observe them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that much of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet. However, I am only talking about Buddhism, not Christianity.

I do not believe in anything that has no substance. All spiritual/supernatural experience or phenomena is of a physical substance that as yet science is unable to observe.

So, I agree with you, although I would alter your statement to this:

"I believe that all of the spiritual is physical, but we just cannot detect it yet."

I also would have to qualify it with a statement that I am speaking to my belief and not other Christians' belief.

Originally posted by Regret
You are rather narrow in your view. If something exists then it is in the realm of science. If there is anything to religion in any way then it must have some form of substance/material. If any religion is true, then the "spiritual"/supernatural is merely material aspects that follow laws we are as of yet unaware of.

Perhaps you've never been in a religion but when has religion ever centered around anything material, yes there are substances but religion is centered around spiritual government and physics.


Originally posted by Regret

If there is a phenomena then it can be studied through science. Religion is not exempt from this. It is not in conflict, it merely claims that it is capable of observing this phenomena while science has yet to observe them.

<Sigh> it seems you failed to see my point, Science is established around materialism. the scientific method isn't really capable of analyzing concepts that deal with vitalsim/idealism. The scientific community is a a "Scienctism" type of body. It makes no sense for them to be able to analyze Religion with that type of philosophy.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Perhaps you've never been in a religion but when has religion ever centered around anything material, yes there are substances but religion is centered around spiritual government and physics.

Sigh> it seems you failed to see my point, Science is established around materialism. the scientific method isn't really capaable of analyzing concepts that deal with vitalsim/idealism. The scientific community is a a "Scienctism" type of body. It makes no sense for them to be able to analyze Religion with that type of philosophy.

I am a religious person.

The problem is that you, like most people, view spiritual/supernatural occurrence as something that is nonexistent, not being made up, but being separate in some way from the reality that science deals with. If something exists it is made up of something. If it is made up of something then there is something to study. If a religion claims that there is nothing there to study then they have claimed that their religion is false. Scientists view this in a similar manner, they are merely more rational than the religion is. Scientists say, we have, as of yet, been unable to find support for the spiritual/supernatural.

My point is that not your opinion is in error. You are using the terms materialism, vitalism, idealism, etc. as a means of separating existence. If there is any truth to religion then something exists. Both groups tend to separate the two because both are threatened by it. Just because people are intent on making stupid statements does not make them right.

Originally posted by Regret
I am a religious person.

The problem is that you, like most people, view spiritual/supernatural occurrence as something that is nonexistent, not being made up, but being separate in some way from the reality that science deals with. If something exists it is made up of something. If it is made up of something then there is something to study. If a religion claims that there is nothing there to study then they have claimed that their religion is false. Scientists view this in a similar manner, they are merely more rational than the religion is. Scientists say, we have, as of yet, been unable to find support for the spiritual/supernatural.

It hasn't found anything because it has limited itself to a materialistic P.O.V. How would science analyze concepts of thought or the soul. The scientific method can't be used to analyze products like the soul. And we all know that the scientific community has a Scientism view that revols around materialism. So if everything doesn't fit into their neat little view on things it doesn't exsist.


Originally posted by Regret

My point is that not your opinion is in error. You are using the terms materialism, vitalism, idealism, etc. as a means of separating existence. If there is any truth to religion then something exists. Both groups tend to separate the two because both are threatened by it. Just because people are intent on making stupid statements does not make them right.

Seperating exsistence, my friend did you know that it' has been scientifically proven that everything your five senses interacts with is just a mere signals your brain sends and not the original. everything you see, smell,taste,touch, and hear are signals. that's what our exsistence is and science merely describes and help us understand this world that we can never truly percieve. we can never interact with the original,because we have no way of analyzing it. so to say materialistic science can be applied to anything outside our sense's makes zero sense. because in the end you can't even be sure what your seeing is even real just like you can't be sure what your not seeing isn't real.

Science and religion do Not have to conflict with one another.

Science uses "applied common sense" (observation and logic) to explain the What and How of the universe. Technically speaking, whether a (transempirical) God exists or not is simply not (empirical) Science's concern. Religion, on the other hand, relies on "faith" to grasp the Why of the universe, the "Meaning of Life," which many associate with "God."

Problems arise when one tries to do the other's job.

Can Science and Religion work together to give a broader picture of reality than either alone? Depends what you mean by Science and Religion.

Science: is it defined by Method or by nature of proof? If by nature of proof--meaning strictly empirical--then No, they can't work together. But then, you're really dealing with Scientism and the problems inherent with a strictly empirical POV. If you define Science by Method--and that the tools used and data collected should reflect the domain being studied--then I would say, at the very least, that the potential exists for Science and Religion to complement one another...provided that Religion means a mindset that is open to Truth and not cemented shut by ego-serving dogma.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

As I have said many times. Science and religion were same thing until the enlightenment.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right, I'm sure no man of science has never fought each other because of different views.

Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign.

I have no doubt there are scientists who have hated each other - but no matter how they feel emotionally they can't prove or disprove a theory based on their feelings. They wait, and apply evidence. Science is littered with failed theorem, but not theorem that have failed due to one persons hate for the others theory, but theorem that could not stand up to the standards of evidence.

Religion, meanwhile, has long had a "might = right" mentality. Just ask the pagans. Oops. I forgot, when Christianity declared itself the only true religion the pagans got squashed. Not based on evidence, but upon the strength of the Christian then Islamic nations.

Ultimatly Bertrand Russell was dead on the money there based upon the historical trends both science and religion have shown.



Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign. Lest I remind you of the great PCR massacre of '62 or the 1987 X-Ray Crystallography riots.

Not to mention pipet tip missiles attacks in the late 90's and the mass-distillation of 1932.

Originally posted by mattrab
Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?

I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?
No. Some of the very irreligious and the very religious alike make religion and science conflict.

Welcome back FeceMan........long time, no hear from....

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I can't remember sciences equivalent of the Crusades. Or Inquisition. Or extremist terrorist campaign.

I have no doubt there are scientists who have hated each other - but no matter how they feel emotionally they can't prove or disprove a theory based on their feelings. They wait, and apply evidence. Science is littered with failed theorem, but not theorem that have failed due to one persons hate for the others theory, but theorem that could not stand up to the standards of evidence.

Nikola tesla work was virtually wiped out, hell you barely hear about him. you can think edison and the scientific community for that. then the slash,burn, and poison cancer treatment, Hell certain theory's are considered taboo to mention or neglected. "Either drift is one of them.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Religion, meanwhile, has long had a "might = right" mentality. Just ask the pagans. Oops. I forgot, when Christianity declared itself the only true religion the pagans got squashed. Not based on evidence, but upon the strength of the Christian then Islamic nations.

Ultimatly Bertrand Russell was dead on the money there based upon the historical trends both science and religion have shown.


And you just generalized, you just named abrahamic religions and applied it to critique religion very smart


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science.


Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
...Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.

Please speak for your own religion.

Religion and Science don't have to be mutually exclusive, but for some reason they seem to want to be. If you look at evolution and say "I think God put that in motion" thats great. Good for you. But its when the Church and other religions activally try to fight scientific progress that we get trouble.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Nikola tesla work was virtually wiped out, hell you barely hear about him. you can think edison and the scientific community for that. then the slash,burn, and poison cancer treatment, Hell certain theory's are considered taboo to mention or neglected. "Either drift is one of them.

What are you talking about? Tesla is very famous in the relevant scientific fields, and his inventions and theories were very important in the continued works of physicists and electrical engineers. It is, in issuance, a proof point: The reason so few of his discoveries are still front page news is because they have been surpassed. It is what happens in science - you make a discovery, it is all good. It is quite possible, and often happens, that with time somebody will be able to build upon it, or radically change your discovery based upon new evidence. Then you fade to scientific history while the new chap gets his time in the sun, until a time when he/she is passed. We know people like Einstein and Newton, because what they came up with was *big*. But many of their actual theories have changed over the years. As I said - scientific history is littered with success stories that have led to new interpretations.

Though he has become something of a poster boy as a person whose later life theories (tesla guns, cosmic rays etc) were seen to have been unfairly passed over. Why? Because the science behind them is dodgy - either these theories were proven as unworkable/tosh, or there was no reason to persue them as there were better things available. And why did he die poor? Because he didn't manage his finances while alive - there was no anti-Tesla conspiracy at work.

As for Either Drift, I have no idea what that is, unless you are talking about it in agriculture, but that is just farmer slang, so I would guess not.



So you are telling me that I am wrong about how the religious scene changed with Christianity? Historically proven fact: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam led to the belief there was "one God, one correct religion" - now tell me, what happened to all those people who didn't believe this? Or believed it wrong? Tell me how this disproves what Russel was saying. It doesn't. Unlike science when push came to shove over theories in religion, might equalled right. They called it "conversion" and then they called it "Holy War."



Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.

Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.

Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.

The correct thing was "Religion was centered around the natural world and tried to explain why things happened.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What are you talking about? Tesla is very famous in the relevant scientific fields, and his inventions and theories were very important in the continued works of physicists and electrical engineers. It is, in issuance, a proof point: The reason so few of his discoveries are still front page news is because they have been surpassed. It is what happens in science - you make a discovery, it is all good. It is quite possible, and often happens, that with time somebody will be able to build upon it, or radically change your discovery based upon new evidence. Then you fade to scientific history while the new chap gets his time in the sun, until a time when he/she is passed. We know people like Einstein and Newton, because what they came up with was *big*. But many of their actual theories have changed over the years. As I said - scientific history is littered with success stories that have led to new interpretations.

Though he has become something of a poster boy as a person whose later life theories (tesla guns, cosmic rays etc) were seen to have been unfairly passed over. Why? Because the science behind them is dodgy - either these theories were proven as unworkable/tosh, or there was no reason to persue them as there were better things available. And why did he die poor? Because he didn't manage his finances while alive - there was no anti-Tesla conspiracy at work.



So you are telling me that I am wrong about how the religious scene changed with Christianity? Historically proven fact: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam led to the belief there was "one God, one correct religion" - now tell me, what happened to all those people who didn't believe this? Or believed it wrong? Tell me how this disproves what Russel was saying. It doesn't. Unlike science when push came to shove over theories in religion, might equalled right. They called it "conversion" and then they called it "Holy War."



Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.

Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.

Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.

science is just another religion. only science is the belief system that let's people do what they want and be free. religions like christianity only make people want to not be free. they want people to live by rules and stuff, and thats why i decided to be a bisexual atheist. so i can do what i want.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please speak for your own religion.

Can you name me a religion that is centered around the material world please?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Religion is centered around the supernatural world and tries to explain who it effects the natural world.

This is the problem with your view.

Religion is centered around phenomena that science as of yet has not explained. This post is a good example:

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why do we have seasons? We know now, the ancient world did not. They came up with mythological reasons why we had winter (A goddess taken to the underworld, giants etc), they came up with reasons why the sun went down, and how babies formed and why it rained.

Religion, early on, was born as a response to humanities curiosity in the world. They wanted to know why things happened, and without science to tell them they came up with gods. And by doing this it gave them a sense of control. They could sacrifice and pray to these representations of nature, and believe that the gods would listen and send rain or sun or victory in battle.

Many religions (baring a few) have tried to make out they are the reason in the world. They had creation myths, including Christianity and Islam. They dealt with cycles and death. It is a recognised fact that a good number of religions were born out of need to explain the natural world. That they were supernatural in nature is less then relevant, as that was the only avenue available at the time that could explain it.

The correct thing was "Religion was centered around the natural world and tried to explain why things happened.

Although I believe in God and religion, I agree with the general thought here. Supernatural, spiritual, vitalist, etc. is only the description given to a phenomena that science as of yet has not explained. There is ample evidence suggesting that the religious experience can, at some point in the future, be studied by science. Science has already studied many phenomena that were considered supernatural or spiritual. Examples include the physical workings of body and brain, the seasons, the sun, moon, stars, light, heat, feelings, etc.

Originally posted by Regret
This is the problem with your view.

Religion is centered around phenomena that science as of yet has not explained.


<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?

You are assuming that there is something that is not material or natural. This is where you are in error. If something can exert influence in the existence we can perceive then it can be studied. To exert influence in this existence that we perceive then in some way it has come into contact with and altered this existence. If it has come into contact and altered something it is material of some type. This can be studied scientifically, perhaps not as of today, but sometime in the future it will be possible.

You are ignoring my statement. There is no such thing as anything not natural.

There is nothing that is not material or energy. There is nothing supernatural. Given this, if there is a God he is some form of energy/material. If there is spirit it is some form of energy/material. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, it is not possible.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Can you name me a religion that is centered around the material world please?

humanism.

And Trancendentalism....
And Dragonfist, I must disagree with you. Science is in NO way a religion. You seem to be defining religion as belief. That is simply wrong. You must believe things to exist. You believe that breathing will keep you alive. Is that a religion? You believe you actually exist, is that a religion? Beliefs are compromises and accpetances we have to make to function in everyday life.

>Blue Nocture, name one thing that doesn't revolve around the natural world that actually exists and effects us.

Originally posted by Regret
You are assuming that there is something that is not material or natural. This is where you are in error. If something can exert influence in the existence we can perceive then it can be studied. To exert influence in this existence that we perceive then in some way it has come into contact with and altered this existence. If it has come into contact and altered something it is material of some type. This can be studied scientifically, perhaps not as of today, but sometime in the future it will be possible.

You are ignoring my statement. There is no such thing as anything not natural.

There is nothing that is not material or energy. There is nothing supernatural. Given this, if there is a God he is some form of energy/material. If there is spirit it is some form of energy/material. It is a fallacy to believe otherwise, it is not possible.

You summed up what I said right when you said there is nothing past the naural world, that's scientism right their and this is exactly what the scientific community does.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
<Sigh> Like I said several times before, Established Science revolves around a materialism and scientism. Now tell me with that kind of logic how can they explain things that don't revolve around the natural world?

Not 100% sure of your definitions... But I'll have a shot anyway.

In the beginning you have the African tribes, just beginning to spread out (the beginning of humanity.) For them there was nothing that was not the natural world, and they understood none of it. Things shone in the sky, food came and went, it rained with thunder and lightening.

Thus the first gods were born. Primal, tribal things they represented the most basic aspects of the hunter gather society. They stood for the dark, uncertain things that the tribes faced and feared, or for the good things they needed. Fertility/food/fire against, famine, winter and so on. Worshiping such let them feel an understanding of the world, and an extent of control as they could call out for food or rain, and believe they might get it.

On to Sumeria, Egypt etc. Things have advanced here, civilisation is grounded, safe. As such the mind could turn to other things. They wondered why the sun went down and why the Nile flooded and what happened after death. The gods fit the bill here, they represented the world and things in it. The sky was a God, Ra, the sun, went down every night to fight a chaotic being. Religion explained the world in absence of science.

Now we get top Greece and Rome, and they really upped the scientific states. It is believed that as science grew, the pagan religions declined, as people realises a difference between natural phenomena caused by natural cycles, and something caused by a god. But science was new, and many things unproven, religion persisted. It was then enter Christianity. Picking up, some would say, on a need to presented itself. It still had all those basic questions in it not answered by science - origins of life and the universe, as well as a bigger focus on something science was no where near approaching - the soul, life after death. Now with the popularity of Christianity it was realised people were starting to look for something new, and two sets of options presented themselves.

A: Religions/cults that offered a person access to secrets, understanding of the cosmos - Gnostic's, the Cult of Isis, Dionysiac mysteries. etc

B: Religions that offered a person the hope of a better life, even if it comes after dealt - Christianity, Manichism. etc.

Now, they still traded on the basis human curiosity, those questions that science at the time wasn't answering - origins, life after death, even though science might very well have answered them by now.

Alliance was essentially right with his claim - Christianity only became truly angsty with science when science started to really enter into it's domain and started answering those questions Christianity had a monopoly on. It was at that point that the difference of oppinion became so profound. Science is not religion in todays world, and religion is not science.



Pretty much. BN you are basing your objections on the belief that there is something not of the natural world - where as early religions (and todays by evolution) believed the natural world and the gods were not so separate. After all, Hades and Olympia were reachable from the earth, Ra was just up there in the sky. The religions were based upon natural phenomena as explanations for them.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You summed up what I said right when you said there is nothing past the naural world, that's scientism right their and this is exactly what the scientific community does.

And so, the things you consider supernatural or spiritual, if they are there at all, are within the scope of that statement by my statements.

And I do believe in God, religion, the whole shibang.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not 100% sure of your definitions... But I'll have a shot anyway.

In the beginning you have the African tribes, just beginning to spread out (the beginning of humanity.) For them there was nothing that was not the natural world, and they understood none of it. Things shone in the sky, food came and went, it rained with thunder and lightening.

Thus the first gods were born. Primal, tribal things they represented the most basic aspects of the hunter gather society. They stood for the dark, uncertain things that the tribes faced and feared, or for the good things they needed. Fertility/food/fire against, famine, winter and so on. Worshiping such let them feel an understanding of the world, and an extent of control as they could call out for food or rain, and believe they might get it.

On to Sumeria, Egypt etc. Things have advanced here, civilisation is grounded, safe. As such the mind could turn to other things. They wondered why the sun went down and why the Nile flooded and what happened after death. The gods fit the bill here, they represented the world and things in it. The sky was a God, Ra, the sun, went down every night to fight a chaotic being. Religion explained the world in absence of science.

Now we get top Greece and Rome, and they really upped the scientific states. It is believed that as science grew, the pagan religions declined, as people realises a difference between natural phenomena caused by natural cycles, and something caused by a god. But science was new, and many things unproven, religion persisted. It was then enter Christianity. Picking up, some would say, on a need to presented itself. It still had all those basic questions in it not answered by science - origins of life and the universe, as well as a bigger focus on something science was no where near approaching - the soul, life after death. Now with the popularity of Christianity it was realised people were starting to look for something new, and two sets of options presented themselves.

A: Religions/cults that offered a person access to secrets, understanding of the cosmos - Gnostic's, the Cult of Isis, Dionysiac mysteries. etc

B: Religions that offered a person the hope of a better life, even if it comes after dealt - Christianity, Manichism. etc.

Now, they still traded on the basis human curiosity, those questions that science at the time wasn't answering - origins, life after death, even though science might very well have answered them by now.

Alliance was essentially right with his claim - Christianity only became truly angsty with science when science started to really enter into it's domain and started answering those questions Christianity had a monopoly on. It was at that point that the difference of oppinion became so profound. Science is not religion in todays world, and religion is not science.



Pretty much. BN you are basing your objections on the belief that there is something not of the natural world - where as early religions (and todays by evolution) believed the natural world and the gods were not so separate. After all, Hades and Olympia were reachable from the earth, Ra was just up there in the sky. The religions were based upon natural phenomena as explanations for them.


I like how you forget to name religions that deal in mysticism and your avoiding what I'm saying I'm comparing mordern religion to mordern science, so why are you naming Dead religions from the helenistic culture?

- the sumerians believed their Gods orginate from another realm

-Greeks beleived in an afterlife

-Most ancient african religions were animism, the belief in animal spirits, they also did ansector worship.


My point still stands the established scientific community revolves around scientism and materialism (I'm not speaking about science as a general) while Relgion now a day's is centrered around viatlism and idealism. The 2 were once one but now have been seperated by the powers that be and therefore are in conflict.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Can you name me a religion that is centered around the material world please?

What do you mean by "material world"? There is only one reality.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean by "material world"? There is only one reality.

You should know what I'm talking about and how conscious effects reality. I believe the one true reality can only be perceived in the highest level of consciousness

Why is there necessariyl one true reality...that seems rather...dogmatic.

Isn't reality more a sum?....of....everything?

Originally posted by Alliance
Why is there necessariyl one true reality...that seems rather...dogmatic.

Isn't reality more a sum?....of....everything?
And everything can only truly be percieved by being one with everything.

I dont really believe in this "true" perception. Truth has many facets.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's funny, Tesla himself supported UFO' theories, PsuedoScience's and New Age Occultism. And Telsa is not that famous, I barely heard mention of him until my late teens.

Not to sound dismissive - but there is a reason they call it pseudoscience. While you might think there is something to it, generally it is fringe at best, and receives little respect from the proper scientific community - and I can't argue with that. And anyway, I must merely have had a better text book. When I did physics back in high school one of our books had an impressive section on pivotal thinkers - and our good fried Tesla was in there - for his proper, workable theories.



My response? Tough cookies. The world isn't fair. If it was more deserving people would be famous instead of Paris Hilton. If the world was fair there would be other Renaissance masters up there with De Vinci. Just because Tesla doesn't get as much kudos as Edison does not = him being unfairly trodden on. And he might have been more famous if he hadn't been seen to have gone of the boil towards the end of his life.



And what is so strange about this? For everything we do today there are many alternatives that will never materialise, with everything from power to cooling meat. Why? Because of practical matters or business matter. Some things aren't cost effective or practical, or would not have a tangible benefit in changing, or are tied up with business - coil/oil vs. clean energy being an example.



Of course, how foolish of me. I should have had this disclaimer "I am sorry I only mentioned Christianity and Islam, as despite the fact they are the worlds largest and most influential religions and prove the point I was making overall my opinion is invalid as I didn't include Buddhists and crystal worshippers." Because let us face it, you are making out that the Abrahamic religions are not a big part of the religious community, when the opposite is true. They possess a massive part of the pie, and have for a long time.



And this is meant to prove what? I never said they didn't have science, so don't presume I implied that. The fact remains that the gods were more often then not standing in for actual scientific theories. The Egyptians also had a complex irrigation system - it didn't mean they didn't pray to Osiris for the inundation or believe that the source of the Nile was a God with a tap. And since you feel happy quoting the Mayan colander and Egyptian astronomy I guess you do realise there was a religious belief tied up in them as well?



Shame on me again for thinking I didn't have to quote a 100 religions to make a point. I will remember in future to list even the minor ones. But anyway, do you remember how this started? A quote by Bertrand Russel (which makes up our debate about science being less prone to irrational violence then religion (excluding Buddhism and crystal religions as they are equally as powerful and influential as Christianity/Islam but they don't convert by force.) The second was me agreeing with Alliance thus

"Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science."

You disputed that. Notice the "early" there. This refers to non-modern religions prior to the reformation. Thus dead religions are relative. Oh, and I did make reference to mystical cults/religions - they were my group A. and they proved attractive when pagan belief started to slide. Not saying they weren't about before then, but it was at that point they came into their own.



And? The Greeks believe Aphrodite was created when the Phallus of Uranus was cast into the sea. The creation of the gods is less relevant to what they represented - and the fact is many of the Sumerian Gods represented aspects of the natural world - the sky, water, the sun, fertility and so on. Standing in for science. I imagine though you will damn me for not posting all 60+ of their gods. An example of religion trying to explain the natural world in absence of a valid, alternate scientific theory.



And? I never said they didn't. In fact from the Sumerian's/Egyptians on I implied that after life's were an important consideration, something science was no where near ready to tackle - especially as tackling it would involve saying "there is unlikely to be such a thing." I could deviate here and talk about how religion/after life was apolitical tool, but we are talking science so I wont.



Correct, the epistemology of this is complex, but one thing that seems popular is that the Tribes attribute animals they knew to the the unknown world, animals having power as for hunter gatherers animal life was a major symbol. Animal spirits in charge of weather. Later we have Anasi the spider and his stories about how animals got to look like they were (once again, religion/mythology filling in for evolutionary science) Similar for ancestor worship - when someone is no longer there (as in dead) they logically are somewhere else - ascension to some other place, some other power. Attributing human characteristics to blind process and natural cycles.




My point still stands that early religion was born out of a need to explain the world, and since science was not up to the task at that point humans attributed natural powers and phenomenon to humanoid deities, animal deities or a blend of the two. Religion has, ultimately be proven wrong in most of it. Mars was not a god, nor a bringer of war. It is a blasted planet. Seasons have nothing to do with gods, nor does child birth, storms, the sea etc. Religion traded on answers to things people wondered about and that there was no other answers to - and that remains the same today. Science is a thing of facts and processes. Religion is a thing of faith - God did this or that. Whatever is unknown can be attributed to a deity.

I don't dispute that modern religion concentrates far more on after life and spirituality. But I do dispute the claim that is because they are what they have always dealt with. Things have changed, religion no longer is able to claim to be the answer to to the workings of the universe from what I see. God/gods do not make the sun go up or down. the sun is not God/gods. Relgion now is still doing the same thing it has always done - standing in with a belief when there was no other theory.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You should know what I'm talking about and how conscious effects reality. I believe the one true reality can only be perceived in the highest level of consciousness

By what you said earlier, I got the impression that you thought there was two; material & spiritual.

Tesla has an SI unit named after him...

If the world was fair more people would know who Rosalind Franklin was.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Tesla has an SI unit named after him...

Yes. I don't know where BN is coming from with her Tesla argument. He might not be the most famous scientist, but I have always found him pretty well recognised for his achievements.



Yes.

Originally posted by mattrab
Is there any conflict between Religon and Science?

I don't believe there is, due to the idea that Science looks at things within time and space, and comes to the conclusion that there is no God. Where as Religon attempts to speculate about what lies beyond the edge of time and space, so do they really conflict?

Einstein described the motivation for his passionate search for the truth as "a cosmic religious feeling" It was, he said, "to experience the universe as a single significant whole." He perceived "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought." He also wrote that "Buddhism . . . contains a much stronger element of it ."

Einstein emphasized that science and religion are not in opposition. Not only was religious feeling a motivation for scientific pursuit, but the results of scientific investigation made humankind humble in the face of the wondrous natural laws that govern all existence. He writes:

.." This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life..."

The main source of conflict between science and religion, according to Einstein, was the "concept of a personal God." The "dross of anthropomorphism" in the passage I quoted above refers to this concept. The humble search for the law of life, which is the way of Buddhism, was, according to Einstein, simultaneously scientific and religious. From the Buddhist perspective, we could say that Buddhism is an all-encompassing body of wisdom focused on the totality of life, while science is focused on temporary aspects of existence. In that sense, science is a part of Buddhism. That is why there can be no conflict between the two. All of the truths of the world are, without exception, the Buddhist Law(truh).

The more science advanced, the more it would demonstrate the validity and truth of the Buddhist teachings. Of course, science and Buddhism belong to two separate dimensions, and their approaches are different as well. I am not saying that Buddhist teachings are correct by virtue of their validation by science. Scientific knowledge changes and evolves on a daily basis, but the absolute truths of Buddhism are in no way affected by the relative truths of science.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not to sound dismissive - but there is a reason they call it pseudoscience. While you might think there is something to it, generally it is fringe at best, and receives little respect from the proper scientific community - and I can't argue with that. And anyway, I must merely have had a better text book. When I did physics back in high school one of our books had an impressive section on pivotal thinkers - and our good fried Tesla was in there - for his proper, workable theories.

The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitamate shallow finding just because they agree with it.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

My response? Tough cookies. The world isn't fair. If it was more deserving people would be famous instead of Paris Hilton. If the world was fair there would be other Renaissance masters up there with De Vinci. Just because Tesla doesn't get as much kudos as Edison does not = him being unfairly trodden on. And he might have been more famous if he hadn't been seen to have gone of the boil towards the end of his life.

Because he proposed things like wireless electricity or free energy, I already gave you a link showing you research based off of tesla's work.
With all these findings you would think thatt we would replace our fuel sources that are 50 years obselete, especially since the biggest issue is alternative fuel.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And what is so strange about this? For everything we do today there are many alternatives that will never materialise, with everything from power to cooling meat. Why? Because of practical matters or business matter. Some things aren't cost effective or practical, or would not have a tangible benefit in changing, or are tied up with business - coil/oil vs. clean energy being an example.

The fact that you accept indoctrine's of a group of people that tell you a claim backed up by what "Empirical science and word of mouth is Disturbing is , Real science isn't found by someone telling you a fact. it's found by research and hardwork, Let me ask you a question why do you trust the findings of the scientific community? is it because you trust them The way you post seems to imply you belive in technical and scientific age right enough, but who created it? The white-coated guardians of science, protecting the guttering flame of hard-won knowledge from the gathering demons of new-age irrationality,or radicals like Alan Turing and the first computers, or even Watson and Crick who had been told to drop their study of DNA but continued it as 'bootleg' research.Of course, one can also compile a long and distinguished list of discoveries in institutional science, especially from the great universities like Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard and Princeton, and especially in important basic fields like atomic physics and astronomy. But, somehow, it is difficult to draw up a list that carries quite the same diversity, the same romantic air of excitement and innovation and one that has so obviously influenced every single aspect of twentieth century life so fundamentally.

Anyone who switches on the electric light, switches on the television, makes a phone call, watches a film, plays a record, takes a photograph, uses a personal computer, drives a car, or boards an aircraft has the lone eccentric to thank, not institutional science.





Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Of course, how foolish of me. I should have had this disclaimer "I am sorry I only mentioned Christianity and Islam, as despite the fact they are the worlds largest and most influential religions and prove the point I was making overall my opinion is invalid as I didn't include Buddhists and crystal worshippers." Because let us face it, you are making out that the Abrahamic religions are not a big part of the religious community, when the opposite is true. They possess a massive part of the pie, and have for a long time.

I'm not saying they don't represent a majority of the world, But they don't represent Religion as whole which was what you were trying to imply.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And this is meant to prove what? I never said they didn't have science, so don't presume I implied that. The fact remains that the gods were more often then not standing in for actual scientific theories. The Egyptians also had a complex irrigation system - it didn't mean they didn't pray to Osiris for the inundation or believe that the source of the Nile was a God with a tap. And since you feel happy quoting the Mayan colander and Egyptian astronomy I guess you do realise there was a religious belief tied up in them as well?


The Gods were part of the scientific theory, they represented a concept.Gods were what they called forces of nature, celestial body's, and concepts such as love or war. The story of the GODs playing a role in soeciety can be translated as how the natural and unatural parts of the world effect humans. Many establish science's originate from psuedoscience's, like astronomy descended from astrology or Chemistry from alchemy. The fundementals are still their, Astrologist belive that celestial body's effect human affairs. Now is that wrong, Not really the sun has a great effect on this planet and our perspective on time(Our calendars, which is the greatest achievement of the Astrology) same with the moon. now the greeks would call the Sun and the moon Apollo and Artemis and would be right to claim they have an effect on their lives. were no different in this era we still name celestial bodies after dieties. Mars is the Greco-Roman God of war, Mercury is The messenger GOD. Hell you can find ancient symbolism in mordern medicine.


Look at the similarities
http://www.maama.org/MedCorp%20Blk-Wht%20logo.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aesculap-serpentine.jpg





Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Shame on me again for thinking I didn't have to quote a 100 religions to make a point. I will remember in future to list even the minor ones. But anyway, do you remember how this started? A quote by Bertrand Russel (which makes up our debate about science being less prone to irrational violence then religion (excluding Buddhism and crystal religions as they are equally as powerful and influential as Christianity/Islam but they don't convert by force.) The second was me agreeing with Alliance thus

I don't see what makes you think science is so super rationale, when people go aroung making claims like ape can become a man. yet if some religion said that I bet you would start throwing stones.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

"Very true. That is really much of what early religion was - an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science."

How was it an attempt , I already mentioned the achievements of the mayans,Egyptians and sumerians. Hell the Dogans found Sirius B before anyone else And that was said to be impossible without a Microscope. the sumerians knew the planets revolved around the sun and then there's this:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/

So agin how is it an attempt?














Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Correct, the epistemology of this is complex, but one thing that seems popular is that the Tribes attribute animals they knew to the the unknown world, animals having power as for hunter gatherers animal life was a major symbol. Animal spirits in charge of weather. Later we have Anasi the spider and his stories about how animals got to look like they were (once again, religion/mythology filling in for evolutionary science) Similar for ancestor worship - when someone is no longer there (as in dead) they logically are somewhere else - ascension to some other place, some other power. Attributing human characteristics to blind process and natural cycles.


And like I said, just because they use symbolism.( which we use today.) doesn't change the function, We still use symbolism today.




My point still stands that early religion was born out of a need to explain the world, and since science was not up to the task at that point humans attributed natural powers and phenomenon to humanoid deities, animal deities or a blend of the two. Religion has, ultimately be proven wrong in most of it. Mars was not a god, nor a bringer of war. It is a blasted planet. Seasons have nothing to do with gods, nor does child birth, storms, the sea etc. Religion traded on answers to things people wondered about and that there was no other answers to - and that remains the same today. Science is a thing of facts and processes. Religion is a thing of faith - God did this or that. Whatever is unknown can be attributed to a deity.

I don't dispute that modern religion concentrates far more on after life and spirituality. But I do dispute the claim that is because they are what they have always dealt with. Things have changed, religion no longer is able to claim to be the answer to to the workings of the universe from what I see. God/gods do not make the sun go up or down. the sun is not God/gods. Relgion now is still doing the same thing it has always done - standing in with a belief when there was no other theory.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitimate shallow finding just because they agree with it.

I suspect you are referring in part to evolution as a "illegitimate shallow finding". I don't follow a religion as I demand proof and reason and logic and have rational problems with certain of them. It is the way I approach many things - I would believe, if there was proof belief was justified. This goes to science as well - I have looked at some theories and found them wanting and reserve judgement or found a more accurate sounding one. Others, I accept. I can think of very, very few pseudoscience that have stood up to my, or the scientific community as a whole, scrutiny.



And as I said this is not so much the responsibility of science. It is not the scientists who are keeping clean energy and potential alternate fuels down - it is big business and dirty industry where so much of the western economy is tied up that puts the brakes on the development of things that might threaten it.



Science has changed, I will say that. There are both pros and cons to this. But from what I have seen of science, in the fields that I will have to deal with, we are reaching a point where money and big setups are needed to keep driving forward. Not for everything of course. But while you can marvel at the work of the eccentrics in there little self run labs (and I respect them much for what they did) science is advancing beyond that. Without a well stocked lab, finances, test subjects and so on work in fields such as major biology, biochemistry and so on aren't going to be done. What do you think would happen if you dropped Tesla or Edison in todays world? Could they make discoveries equal to the things they came up with in their own time without the aid of "big science"? I am not talking about them inventing the TV, I am talking about them being able to do the same things labs and research parks are doing.




It still works for me. Christianity/Islam - not the only religions. Tell me what happened to pagans and Jews and Buddhist in contact with them? Even including religions not powerful and who didn't convert by force my point it made: might = right. I was only listing the two main victors before, but now if you like I could list all the religions who have suffered as they weren't strong enough to resist.



Symbolism is different from belief. Just because we left the planets with their Roman monkiers doesn't really mean anything. Culture today is full of left over aspects of the cultures that fell behind. Rome, Greece, Egypt and so on (note, there are many names I am leaving out.)

Now I don't no why you are so adversarial to what I am saying, especially as our disagreement comes down to technicalities. I am arguing from a common historical perspective that ancient religions had a strong origin in the need for humanity to understand the world - they made gods they could understand. Look at them, usually they are humans, or animals. They attributed humanity to the blind processes of life and death as a way to explain the world. Yes, the sun is important. Yes, the moon is important, but there is nothing divine about them. Yet for certain ancient people they could not comprehend or begin to suspect what they really were. That they were important sure, but not why or how. Gods were the answer. That some of our hard sciences today grew from religious belief seems to empathise the fact religion was, when it came understanding the natural world, merely a stand in until sciences could actually provide the reason.

You are arguing from a more spiritual perspective. I wont say you are wrong, but neither will I say you are right. I stand by the historical stance on the subject. I don't have a problem with the ancient religions. I like them better then most modern religions. That they served so adequately for scientific fact for so long is admirable. But I will not claim them to be something they are not.



No. Some religion just says man was made from dirt and a divine gush of air. Or made from clay and baked in an oven. Or created by a great sky serpent. And so on. To be fair I find science, which makes a habit of grounding itself in facts and the scientific process more rational then certain religions (note, not ALL religions) which claim something and advocate acceptance of the claim on *faith*



Some cultures do not = all cultures. Some understanding does not = all understanding. The light bulb theory has little in the way of factual proof. It is a popular "what if" theory but historians (not to mention scientists) have found nothing that warrants the rewriting of history books. Just like certain tomb arts do not prove aliens built the pyramids, or that the Egyptians were predicting the future. Or that the Romans had a form of primitive atomic energy. Or that Genghis Khan or the Vandal chief had access to some ancient book that led them to attack China/Rome. Likewise I know there is debate about the Dogan star finding.

As I said above, based upon my studies, I am going with the historical stance that "much of ancient religion was an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science." And nothing you have said seems to really challenge that - we still use symbols today, some cultures knew some science, the moon and sun do influence the earth.




Not sure the point you are making here.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Scientific Community dimisses anything that doesn't fit their materialist P.O.V., this was the point I was trying to make. One such example is when they label certain research psudeoscience and than turn around promoting some illegitamate shallow finding just because they agree with it.

This is totally incorrect. YOu obviously dont understand science.

No, I'm sorry to jump in in the middle of a massive post fest, but I cant resist now.

Scientists spend their lives trying to find whats right to the best of their ability. If what you said was correct...scientific ideas would never change. Thats simply not the case.

Originally posted by Alliance
This is totally incorrect. YOu obviously dont understand science.

No, I'm sorry to jump in in the middle of a massive post fest, but I cant resist now.

Scientists spend their lives trying to find whats right to the best of their ability. If what you said was correct...scientific ideas would never change. Thats simply not the case.

And When did I say science as a whole? I said the "Established Scientific Community"

science has broken down many things that people had thought was mysterious and beleives that people held close to them.

Eventually every aspect of religion will suffer the wrath of science

Its all a matter of time

Its all a matter of time

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And When did I say science as a whole? I said the "Established Scientific Community"

No. My point still stands.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I suspect you are referring in part to evolution as a "illegitimate shallow finding". I don't follow a religion as I demand proof and reason and logic and have rational problems with certain of them. It is the way I approach many things - I would believe, if there was proof belief was justified. This goes to science as well - I have looked at some theories and found them wanting and reserve judgement or found a more accurate sounding one. Others, I accept. I can think of very, very few pseudoscience that have stood up to my, or the scientific community as a whole, scrutiny.

Based on what, No offense but I seriously doubt you sat down and refuted every piece of evidence that support a PsuedoScience. Like everyone else you most likely heard what a scientist had to say and accepted it as fact. I can make this assumption about many people on this forum since I debated them before.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And as I said this is not so much the responsibility of science. It is not the scientists who are keeping clean energy and potential alternate fuels down - it is big business and dirty industry where so much of the western economy is tied up that puts the brakes on the development of things that might threaten it.

That wasn't my point, Most free Energy research originates from tesla's late work and theories. The same theories the Scientific community Shuned. The point I'm trying to make is that "The Scientific Community" has shuned and Critisized theories they call "PsuedoScience and turned out to be successful The story of Cold Fusion is an example and countless others.

http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Science has changed, I will say that. There are both pros and cons to this. But from what I have seen of science, in the fields that I will have to deal with, we are reaching a point where money and big setups are needed to keep driving forward. Not for everything of course. But while you can marvel at the work of the eccentrics in there little self run labs (and I respect them much for what they did) science is advancing beyond that. Without a well stocked lab, finances, test subjects and so on work in fields such as major biology, biochemistry and so on aren't going to be done. What do you think would happen if you dropped Tesla or Edison in todays world? Could they make discoveries equal to the things they came up with in their own time without the aid of "big science"? I am not talking about them inventing the TV, I am talking about them being able to do the same things labs and research parks are doing.

Tesla shaped the 20th century and was a hundred years ahead of his time, so my answer is hell yes he can!



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

It still works for me. Christianity/Islam - not the only religions. Tell me what happened to pagans and Jews and Buddhist in contact with them? Even including religions not powerful and who didn't convert by force my point it made: might = right. I was only listing the two main victors before, but now if you like I could list all the religions who have suffered as they weren't strong enough to resist.

And you act like this is not the case in science, Try showing work that deals in psychokensis,Flame Proof,BioEnergy,Ether Drift,Ghost and see how serious your work is taken. Science has a shameful record itself
Slash,Burn,Poison Cancer treatment andTuskagee Tragedy are just a few.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Symbolism is different from belief. Just because we left the planets with their Roman monkiers doesn't really mean anything. Culture today is full of left over aspects of the cultures that fell behind. Rome, Greece, Egypt and so on (note, there are many names I am leaving out.)


So despite the fact we still use ancient symbolism, it doesn't mean anything



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Now I don't no why you are so adversarial to what I am saying, especially as our disagreement comes down to technicalities. I am arguing from a common historical perspective that ancient religions had a strong origin in the need for humanity to understand the world - they made gods they could understand. Look at them, usually they are humans, or animals. They attributed humanity to the blind processes of life and death as a way to explain the world. Yes, the sun is important. Yes, the moon is important, but there is nothing divine about them. Yet for certain ancient people they could not comprehend or begin to suspect what they really were. That they were important sure, but not why or how. Gods were the answer. That some of our hard sciences today grew from religious belief seems to empathise the fact religion was, when it came understanding the natural world, merely a stand in until sciences could actually provide the reason.


I disagree, considering how little the ancient people had the sun and moon would be divine, since it was responsible for their calendars. Agriculture was very important back then, predicting weather and seasons helped them know when to plant. because lost of crops could mean death so yes it makes since that they give praise because life was alot harder than it is now.The ancients could only answer so much, they didn't know whatthe sun and stars were so they called them gods. but they weren't wrong when they put these dietes at the center of their civilization. You seem to think because they weren't 100% right about dieties you have a point, yes they weren't 100% but neither are we science is about progress and there exsist sao many we don't know.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

You are arguing from a more spiritual perspective. I wont say you are wrong, but neither will I say you are right. I stand by the historical stance on the subject. I don't have a problem with the ancient religions. I like them better then most modern religions. That they served so adequately for scientific fact for so long is admirable. But I will not claim them to be something they are not.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

No. Some religion just says man was made from dirt and a divine gush of air. Or made from clay and baked in an oven. Or created by a great sky serpent. And so on. To be fair I find science, which makes a habit of grounding itself in facts and the scientific process more rational then certain religions (note, not ALL religions) which claim something and advocate acceptance of the claim on *faith*

Yeah these claims are absurd compared to a theory whcih claims we came from lifeless matter and transformed into intelligent men.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Some cultures do not = all cultures. Some understanding does not = all understanding. The light bulb theory has little in the way of factual proof. It is a popular "what if" theory but historians (not to mention scientists) have found nothing that warrants the rewriting of history books. Just like certain tomb arts do not prove aliens built the pyramids, or that the Egyptians were predicting the future. Or that the Romans had a form of primitive atomic energy. Or that Genghis Khan or the Vandal chief had access to some ancient book that led them to attack China/Rome. Likewise I know there is debate about the Dogan star finding.


I was right, because Prof.Dickery say's it's not true you agree, tell me havve you sat down and looked at the facts and come up with a refuting thesis or did you just read some Scientist opinion on the matter and agreed,I'm guessing the later.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

As I said above, based upon my studies, I am going with the historical stance that "much of ancient religion was an attempt to explain the natural world at a time when there was not adequate understanding of science." And nothing you have said seems to really challenge that - we still use symbols today, some cultures knew some science, the moon and sun do influence the earth.




I just posted a link showing egyptian light bulb and you just disagreed because the establishment does. I bet you if they told you were descendented from a dinosaur you will agree.

Not everyone is an expert on everything. Better to actually let people wh oknow what they're talking about do the talking....as opposed to being ignorantly skeptical even though you are completely not qualified to be so.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not everyone is an expert on everything. Better to actually let people wh oknow what they're talking about do the talking....as opposed to being ignorantly skeptical even though you are completely not qualified to be so.



So someone who critiques evidence (which is what scientist do)is ignorant as opposed to a person who "Takes Someone's word" without actually doing any research or work to see if their correct is logical; Great response

No. A scinetist will never critique evidence on somehting he knows nothing about. A person should do research, but If you dont have time to run to the library of have access to published scholarly journal articles, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with an accepted viewpoint.

It much better than ignorant people who just run around saying "thats wrong" even though I have no credibleity to judge it. Intelligent Design is a product of that type of attitude.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. A scinetist will never critique evidence on somehting he knows nothing about. A person should do research, but If you dont have time to run to the library of have access to published scholarly journal articles, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with an accepted viewpoint.

It much better than ignorant people who just run around saying "thats wrong" even though I have no credibleity to judge it. Intelligent Design is a product of that type of attitude.


So theirs nothing wrong with a view point you don't verify for yourself?
And when the HELL does anyone need credibilaty to do research, what a BS comment. that's no different than people who choose to follow a religion and don't do the research to verify the facts himself. it's called blind faith, so don't go around calling people ignorant without any facts of your own to back it up. taking the opininon of someone just because credentials VS doing your own research to verify if it's true. Nice leap of faith, just hope your not wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
It much better than ignorant people who just run around saying "thats wrong" even though I have no credibleity to judge it. Intelligent Design is a product of that type of attitude.
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.

Sadness am I.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.

Sadness am I.

Yet another person who is ignorant of what constitutes a scientific theory.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Based on what, No offense but I seriously doubt you sat down and refuted every piece of evidence that support a pseudoscience. Like everyone else you most likely heard what a scientist had to say and accepted it as fact. I can make this assumption about many people on this forum since I debated them before.

No, I have not sat down an personally looked at every pseudoscience. But I have looked at a few, and in my uni studies (those with psychology) there have been plenty. Now, I guess it is possible that I have been unlucky and just over the next rise their is the Vally of "true pseudoscience" - but I figure that is unlikely.



And I still say there is a difference between just not following a line of research and actually trying to put it down.



Any real reason other then he was a great scientist in his own time? Considering how far science has advanced?



Work with bioenergy will be taken seriously, it is a known thing, but since at this point in time there is little theoretically valid applications for it one wouldn't expect much in the way of grant funding (come up with a reason though, and they would get it.) There is a good reason why psychokinesis and ghosts wont be taken seriously - because they have been around for a long time, and governments (including the US and Soviet) have looked at them before. And what little evidence found was no where near conclusive (hell, I was and in some cases still am fascinated with the paranormal, but even I admit that even the most impressive, as yet non-debunked evidence is really not that impressive.)



I call Mars Mars - I don't believe it is a God. If I bought a Mazda I would be buying a car, not the Zoroastrian deity. If and when I became a medical practitioner, I would know the symbolic relevance of the symbol (well, I do now) but I wouldn't be believing in anything. Crosses, names whatever. The human mind has an affinity with symbols - images associated with concepts. That is all, concepts. Just because we use symbols that ancient cultures once used in religion doesn't mean that we are worshipping, or that ancient cultures we doing something relevant to your argument. We assign symbols to something, if they last long enough they comes to carry connotations of what it represents. The Nazi swastika carries connotations of the Nazi regime, despite the fact it once was used in Persian and Hindu religion as something totally different.

We use symbols, yes. We even use ancient symbols that once carried religious connotations... so what? They aren't religious anymore. We aren't attributing God/gods to medicine or the stars anymore (well, most of us aren't)



Not sure where you are taking this. Once again I reiterate - common historical view that much of ancient religion was a method for ancient cultures to attempt to explain the natural world. They didn't have the necessary science to understand it scientifically so they attribute it to the supernatural/divine. How does what you say change that fact? That the sun and rain were important no body is they were not, simply that they for most part lacked scientific evidence of their workings or even what they really were is also not considered in doubt. They attributed them to gods, and by way of this felt they understood what was happening, and it gave them some control, as they could appeal to the gods - when in reality no matter how much you appeal to Osiris, if the flood isn't coming, it isn't coming. If you are in a famine, it is hardly wise to waste valuable food sacrificing it in the hope that some hunter/animal aspect will bring the herds back. But they believed that Gods moved the sun and Gods moved the clouds and gods moved the herds - when they didn't. Gravity, orbits, migration patterns, the precipitation cycle, the laws of the natural world. Not religious, but religion was often the only way they could be explained in the absence of science.



Uh, uh. uh. Don't change definitions now. We are not talking about how life started, your claimed it was absurd to believe man came from apes, I claim it is far more far fetched to believe God took some dust and made man, or that some great big guy got some clay and baked it. This based on there being 0% scientific evidence for divine man making, yet a great deal for man evolving in the homo family. Yes, I expect to be called a flukist and you to say about how evolution is based on hoaxes and to thouragly show your bias.



You really do have a thing against scientists, don't you? There is no evidence, archaeologically, that Egyptians had light bulbs - just because some modern chap sits down and can make one out of simple materials. Hear what I am saying - archaeologists. The people who spend there lives locating the artifacts of lost cultures. Now I could make a mortar out of a pottery tube, a flammable liquid and a wooden plug. It is a crap, dangerous thing, but the lemon flies far. Materials available to all ancient culture. Yet there is no evidence the egyptians had combustion artillery. Saying "but they could of" does not equal proof. Proof. Proof.

Your attitude seems to be "If science says it, it must be a lie or wrong" - that seems to open a can of worms, as you wont be satisfied by anything.

"The Egyptians had the light bulb" you say.

I say "actually that is a popular myth, where as archaeologists have found no evidence this was true, and while modern day cultures could make a primitive light, that does not prove the Egyptians did or..."

You respond "Your just buying into the lies of science. Have you actually looked at the evidence etc etc etc."

I respond "What bloody evidence? A guy making one today? That is not evidence. Take me to the museum where they have on display the light bulb. Get me the survey log where the archaeologist found evidence of it. Find me a single reputable historian who will argue it with conviction."

And what do you do?



That link is not proof. That link does not show anything that approaches historical/scientific fact. That link shows an interpretation of some art (dodgy, I might add) and someone demonstrating how the Egyptians might have done it... if they had. It doesn't matter if you change the if to when.

And no, humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs. We evolved from mammals that existed with the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, I have not sat down an personally looked at every pseudoscience. But I have looked at a few, and in my uni studies (those with psychology) there have been plenty. Now, I guess it is possible that I have been unlucky and just over the next rise their is the Vally of "true pseudoscience" - but I figure that is unlikely.

So tell me what makes Itelligent Design Theory a pseudoscience, and don't give that crap about their is no proof. refute ONE claim that ID has made.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And I still say there is a difference between just not following a line of research and actually trying to put it down.

Despite the fact it could change the way we live completely, sorry but if someone found the cure for cancer and his work isn't published no matter how accurate his findings are then somethings up.





Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Any real reason other then he was a great scientist in his own time? Considering how far science has advanced?

How far Science Advance, were using a fuel source that has been obselete close to 100 years.Tesla proposed theories like weather manipulation, Wireless electricity, EarthQuake machine. H.A.A.R.P. is based completely on the work of a man that lived in the late 19th century, and your telling me science has advance to far for him


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Work with bioenergy will be taken seriously, it is a known thing, but since at this point in time there is little theoretically valid applications for it one wouldn't expect much in the way of grant funding (come up with a reason though, and they would get it.) There is a good reason why psychokinesis and ghosts wont be taken seriously - because they have been around for a long time, and governments (including the US and Soviet) have looked at them before. And what little evidence found was no where near conclusive (hell, I was and in some cases still am fascinated with the paranormal, but even I admit that even the most impressive, as yet non-debunked evidence is really not that impressive.)

Please link me to any government site that has said telekenisis and other mind science's were found to be a dud. Despite the fact that most government agencies have admitted in many reports to have done experiments in these feilds and found results. hell there have been several programs that have tested techniques such as "Remote Viewing"
And they pass. So I dunno where your coming from claiming it's a dud.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

I call Mars Mars - I don't believe it is a God. If I bought a Mazda I would be buying a car, not the Zoroastrian deity. If and when I became a medical practitioner, I would know the symbolic relevance of the symbol (well, I do now) but I wouldn't be believing in anything. Crosses, names whatever. The human mind has an affinity with symbols - images associated with concepts. That is all, concepts. Just because we use symbols that ancient cultures once used in religion doesn't mean that we are worshipping, or that ancient cultures we doing something relevant to your argument. We assign symbols to something, if they last long enough they comes to carry connotations of what it represents. The Nazi swastika carries connotations of the Nazi regime, despite the fact it once was used in Persian and Hindu religion as something totally different.

We use symbols, yes. We even use ancient symbols that once carried religious connotations... so what? They aren't religious anymore. We aren't attributing God/gods to medicine or the stars anymore (well, most of us aren't)


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Not sure where you are taking this. Once again I reiterate - common historical view that much of ancient religion was a method for ancient cultures to attempt to explain the natural world. They didn't have the necessary science to understand it scientifically so they attribute it to the supernatural/divine. How does what you say change that fact? That the sun and rain were important no body is they were not, simply that they for most part lacked scientific evidence of their workings or even what they really were is also not considered in doubt. They attributed them to gods, and by way of this felt they understood what was happening, and it gave them some control, as they could appeal to the gods - when in reality no matter how much you appeal to Osiris, if the flood isn't coming, it isn't coming. If you are in a famine, it is hardly wise to waste valuable food sacrificing it in the hope that some hunter/animal aspect will bring the herds back. But they believed that Gods moved the sun and Gods moved the clouds and gods moved the herds - when they didn't. Gravity, orbits, migration patterns, the precipitation cycle, the laws of the natural world. Not religious, but religion was often the only way they could be explained in the absence of science.


and I keep telling you, that they simply gave natural phenomenon names and titles. just like we call mars mars. The difference is that they worshipped these phenomenon and at some point attributed them to human characteristics and made it seem as if their sentient. I already told you why they did this, it was because they played a very important role in their lives, since survival in ancient times was much harder than now. If you lived in those times you would be thankful too.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Uh, uh. uh. Don't change definitions now. We are not talking about how life started, your claimed it was absurd to believe man came from apes, I claim it is far more far fetched to believe God took some dust and made man, or that some great big guy got some clay and baked it. This based on there being 0% scientific evidence for divine man making, yet a great deal for man evolving in the homo family. Yes, I expect to be called a flukist and you to say about how evolution is based on hoaxes and to thouragly show your bias.

So it's more probable that this lifeless dust gained life out of the blue, You belive in the exact Same process of something lifeless gaining life. yet the ONLY Difference is choose you substitute GOD with nothing, how hypocritical. By the way Abiogenesis has been disproved.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

You really do have a thing against scientists, don't you? There is no evidence, archaeologically, that Egyptians had light bulbs - just because some modern chap sits down and can make one out of simple materials. Hear what I am saying - archaeologists. The people who spend there lives locating the artifacts of lost cultures. Now I could make a mortar out of a pottery tube, a flammable liquid and a wooden plug. It is a crap, dangerous thing, but the lemon flies far. Materials available to all ancient culture. Yet there is no evidence the egyptians had combustion artillery. Saying "but they could of" does not equal proof. Proof. Proof.


I have Nothing against scientist, I never said I did. I DO however dislike the Scientific Community which I openly admitted. Science has become a tool against the people, Where favorable theories based on Solid Opinion dominate. Mordern Science claims to know all,since whatever they can't prove doesn't exsist.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Your attitude seems to be "If science says it, it must be a lie or wrong" - that seems to open a can of worms, as you wont be satisfied by anything.

"The Egyptians had the light bulb" you say.

I say "actually that is a popular myth, where as archaeologists have found no evidence this was true, and while modern day cultures could make a primitive light, that does not prove the Egyptians did or..."

You respond "Your just buying into the lies of science. Have you actually looked at the evidence etc etc etc."

I respond "What bloody evidence? A guy making one today? That is not evidence. Take me to the museum where they have on display the light bulb. Get me the survey log where the archaeologist found evidence of it. Find me a single reputable historian who will argue it with conviction."

And what do you do?.

That Chap is Erich Von Daniken, he's a researcher. The lightbulb was made from specifications which he read from the heiroglyph's he studied


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

That link is not proof. That link does not show anything that approaches historical/scientific fact. That link shows an interpretation of some art (dodgy, I might add) and someone demonstrating how the Egyptians might have done it... if they had. It doesn't matter if you change the if to when.

And no, humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs. We evolved from mammals that existed with the dinosaurs.

It's a myth based on somebody else's word, that's the best you have. How much research have you done on the subject. what evidence do you have to support that it's a myth please PM with yourlinks and info please. otherwise your just taking someone else's word.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet another person who is ignorant of what constitutes a scientific theory.
Yes, because that is what I was addressing in my post. That's what I was talking about. Completely. You caught me, you with your italics and science.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So theirs nothing wrong with a view point you don't verify for yourself?
And when the HELL does anyone need credibilaty to do research,
I'm sorry I don't have time to redo and reinterpret every experiment done throught history. I'll satisify myself with the people who have done them a hundred times already. Really. I wonder if you know anything about science. How are you supposed to do a test on postranslational regulation of iron regulating proteins if you know nothing about it? Could you start by reverifing quantum mechanics for me? You might need to discover the electron first.

There is no faith involved.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.
I don't think thats the case. I know quite a bit about the theory...or more apporpriately phrased: vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't think thats the case. I know quite a bit about the theory...or more apporpriately phrased: vague untestable almost-hypothesis.
Then you'll know that IDT isn't just based off of "EVOLUTION IS WRONG", I presume.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm sorry I don't have time to redo and reinterpret every experiment done throught history. I'll satisify myself with the people who have done them a hundred times already. Really. I wonder if you know anything about science. How are you supposed to do a test on postranslational regulation of iron regulating proteins if you know nothing about it? Could you start by reverifing quantum mechanics for me? You might need to discover the electron first.



There is no faith involved.


Your taking a leap of faith in someone's research, yet you say thier's no faith involved okay.

I never said to retest everything By yourself, just get a second opinion and keep yourself educated. instead of falling back on someones research, if you read or several books instead of taking in only what you heard than you will develop your own sense.

Originally posted by Alliance

I don't think thats the case. I know quite a bit about the theory...or more apporpriately phrased: vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

Clearly since you can't even give a solid reason except "It's a vague hypothesis" nice rebuttal

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Your taking a leap of faith in someone's research, yet you say thier's no faith involved okay.

I never said to retest everything By yourself, just get a second opinion and keep yourself educated. instead of falling back on someones research, if you read or several books instead of taking in only what you heard than you will develop your own sense.

No. Clearly this is just beyond your comprehension. Published research has stood up to the scrutiny of peer reviewers. Research is more than just looking things up. Scinetific Theories have mounds of information backing them up. Its reviewed by everyone. Even moreso...its challenged by everyone...becuase, trust me, everyone wants to be the scientiest who overthrows it and get to be the parent of the new one. If the Theory is still there...no one has effectivly challeged it.

If you have no idea how a plane flies how are you to effectively judge how its flown? No. I didnt' think so. So stop making stuff up like you are qualifies to have a valid opinon on anything and everything.



Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Clearly since you can't even give a solid reason except "It's a vague hypothesis" nice rebuttal
Excuse me. No one ever asked for a reason. Fece-man simply attacked my knowledge of the subject. This is not an ID thread. There already is one. If you want to discuss it in there, I'd be happy to. Intellignet design isnt a Theory...its not even a theory...its as I said vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Clearly this is just beyond your comprehension. Published research has stood up to the scrutiny of peer reviewers. Research is more than just looking things up. Scinetific Theories have mounds of information backing them up. Its reviewed by everyone. Even moreso...its challenged by everyone...becuase, trust me, everyone wants to be the scientiest who overthrows it and get to be the parent of the new one. If the Theory is still there...no one has effectivly challeged it.

If you have no idea how a plane flies how are you to effectively judge how its flown? No. I didnt' think so. So stop making stuff up like you are qualifies to have a valid opinon on anything and everything.




Excuse me. No one ever asked for a reason. Fece-man simply attacked my knowledge of the subject. This is not an ID thread. There already is one. If you want to discuss it in there, I'd be happy to. Intellignet design isnt a Theory...its not even a theory...its as I said vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

And you don't know how the real world works, maybe in make believe land it works like that. Why don't you ask a scientist to debate darwinsim in public or Announce their free energy research. You won't jack squat about the experiments that show fusion is possible at room temperature, and in a jam jar.

And as usual ID is not a theory based on what, I'm gonna bet 100$ You can't refute 1 theory proposed by ID, rather you just wait for some Scientist with high credentials to say it's BS and you agree completely with him. yeah that's real science

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And you don't know how the real world works, maybe in make believe land it works like that. Why don't you ask a scientist to debate darwinsim in public or Announce their free energy research. You won't jack squat about the experiments that show fusion is possible at room temperature, and in a jam jar.

And as usual ID is not a theory based on what, I'm gonna bet 100$ You can't refute 1 theory proposed by ID, rather you just wait for some Scientist with high credentials to say it's BS and you agree completely with him. yeah that's real science

I really can't believe you. You can rant all you want, you are ignorant of what scinece is, how the scientific community works, and how real life works. Crock ideas get published...if there's evidence. Get over it. Fusion hasn't been done in a jam jar. I have no idea what half the sentances you wrote are saying.

If you want to debate ID, you have my offer. The thread is here.

But grow up and stop simply slandering me because you don't have valid points. You have no I idea who I am or what I do. YOu have demonstrated that you have no idea about what science is or how it works.

Originally posted by Alliance
I really can't believe you. You can rant all you want, you are ignorant of what scinece is, how the scientific community works, and how real life works. Crock ideas get published...if there's evidence. Get over it. Fusion hasn't been done in a jam jar. I have no idea what half the sentances you wrote are saying.

If you want to debate ID, you have my offer. The thread is here.

But grow up and stop simply slandering me because you don't have valid points. You have no I idea who I am or what I do. YOu have demonstrated that you have no idea about what science is or how it works.


You just claimed you know the inner workings of the scientific community, as if your a part of it. Yes Fusion was done in a jam bottle at room temperature, if you don't believe I won't try to convince you since some guy with credentials didn't announce.

And it's you that doesn't understand what science, do you honestly believe that the most important discoveries were founded by some institution that got it's support from a peer supported magazine. Scientist are human to, so is the community. their have been times a theory was thrown a way because it did not fit some consensus. you can rant all you want about me being ignorant. The fact is most of the biggest achievements have been made by eccentrics who went against the orthodoxy I wonder why?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You just claimed you know the inner workings of the scientific community, as if your a part of it.

Ignorance is bliss huh? You may be talking to an avatar, but there si a person behind here. I do things in the real world.

You're all talk.

If you want to actually discuss something, like ID, go ahead. BUt if all your going to do is make sh*t up....quit wasting my time.

Originally posted by Alliance
Ignorance is bliss huh? You may be talking to an avatar, but there si a person behind here. I do things in the real world.

You're all talk.

If you want to actually discuss something, like ID, go ahead. BUt if all your going to do is make sh*t up....quit wasting my time.


Calmdown, you act like your being fisted. there's no point of debating someone who say's "I'm making shit up" do the research and than make a conclusion.

Get a grip. You're all talk. I have done endless research. I've made a clear conclusion. If you don't like it, debate me on it. If not, then drop it. Sexual references are clearly not approprate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Get a grip. You're all talk. I have done endless research. I've made a clear conclusion. If you don't like it, debate me on it. If not, then drop it. Sexual references are clearly not approprate.

When you claim someone is ignorant, than outright say I'm making shit up is rude. I'm not making anyhting up Robert Huggins duplicated a "Hot fusion" experiment using ordinary water in a jam jar at room temperture.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So tell me what makes Itelligent Design Theory a pseudoscience, and don't give that crap about their is no proof. refute ONE claim that ID has made.

I never said ID is a pseudoscience. I know it is a theory put forward by some who feel uncomfortable with the idea we exist on pure chance (ooo, inflammatory) that relies far to much on uncertain areas of evolution and things like probability (ooo, inflammatory)



I feel there is a difference between something like the cure for cancer and things like alternate power sources. And don't you remember, just a couple of weeks ago scientists announced they had come up with a vaccine that will protect women against cervical cancer?



Foucoult proposed the sea could be turned into lemonade. Key word: proposed. Proposed. Tesla didn't really achieve anything with them while he was alive. People had been dreaming of weather control long before Tesla came up with it, and none of it has materialised - why, because if it is possible we are not at that point yet. Fact: Just because you dislike how science is handling itself does not mean that that science is somehow holding down things like cars that run on air and the cure to aids. Fact: Just because you like the sound of theories Tesla made does not in fact mean they can be, or ever will be realised - quite possibly because they are absurd of pipe dreams. Edison, Da Vinci, many great scientists came up with theories about things that, in retrospect, turned out to be little more then fanciful hopes, or down right madness.

But I am pleased you think that if Tesla and the set up from his time got dropped here that he would be trouncing the massive scientific organisations of today. Seems realistic. Then maybe we could drop a Roman legion in to do battle against a battalion of US armor. I imagine you would like to put $100 on the Roman Legion winning yes?

But anyway, to the original question stemming from Bertrand Russel: do you truly believe that scinece has been shown to be more violent and oppressive then religion?



Technically since it is you claiming it is real it is up to you to provide the proof. Governments and scientific institutes had been testing those kind of things since the late 40's. And most of those programs had been mothballed or completly discontinued by the late 80s. Why? Because none of them produced tangible evidence that it was true, or that there was even any reason to continue research. So why don't you post some info from government agencies and scientific institutes that supports your claim? And I mean actually evidence, not the circumstantial stuff Deano and others post. Research reports, testimony of chief scientists... that kind of thing. Make me wonder why if there was so much evidence the research was mostly cut off?



And that makes no sense. We give a planet a name, or we leave it with one it was given before - we aren't calling it a god. We need to name things for the purpose of understanding and education, we can't just go "that thing in the sky next to the other thing in the sky near another thing in the sky." Much easier to name something. And there is a difference between worshipping something you know is a natural phenomena, and worshipping something you think is the act of a God, or the god itself. Natural phenomena are not acts of god, nor gods themselves.



Once again you are trying to change the argument. You claim it is absurd man came from apes, I say it is just as absurd, if not more so, to say that man was the result of some god spitting on some dust.



Oh yes. Erich Von Daniken. Author of "Chariots of the Gods." The man who believes that human affairs have been influence bu ETs since before history began. The man whose interpretations of hieroglyphs do not match up with those of any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist.




How much research have I done? I am currently in the third year of university for my course in psychology/psychiatry, and I get a certain number of elective spots which I dedicate to history (Roman and Chinese being my favorites.) I like to think this makes me well read. And I am afraid to say that the historical community as a whole finds Danikens claims as unproven and down right absurd at times. They accuse him of operating from an erroneous hypothesis based upon incorrectly interpreted facts, they claim he is far to willing to draw his own conclusions from vague historical sources. They note he has been caught up in many frauds (including the falsification of archaeological artifacts.) They note he operates under the outdated historical stance of eurocentrism, and possibly a theological one.

Now I have put up with you again and again saying I am just following someone else's claim. That to express any support of a historical or scientific stance is an expression of ignorance. Tell me.... how is what you are doing here any different? You seem to have chucked you support firmly behind Daniken who can claim virtually no support from the historical community. Who, as Sagan noted "needs extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims" - evidence he can't produce. Other then his hieroglyphs which no body has been able to say support his stance. Seems to me you are being hypocritical:



Oh yes. Get a second opinion - how about the fact that the vast majority of the historical community do not support his claims? So why don't you just make a nice long list of all the people that could be called credible who do, and all the evidence you base it on? I know he has supporters, but they are no where near as many or as credited and reputed as the veritable legions who think he is a crank. Because it seems to me you are just following what someone else says.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How much research have you done on the subject.How much research have you done at all? You make all these bold claims about science and how the scientific community works, how much science are you actually involved in?

Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?

Enough to not know what constitutes scientific theory, to not care that there is no proof behind and still claim its somehow science?

Enough to know absolutely nothing about the processes involved in submission of scientific literature?

Which esteemed institute did you obtain your credentials in order to be such an eminent authority on the scientific process and community?

Science

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?
Rosalind Franklin. We watched the same movie about her twice in my AP Biology class.

Extra credit for knowing the technique she used.

Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

Originally posted by The thinker
Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

What I find odd ofttimes, is that these people will find very small, and rather insignificant flaws in science, that don't impact the conclusion, and say that that is evidence that science is wrong. Yet if someone points to a flaw that opens a gaping question as to the validity of their interpretation of the Bible, it is brushed aside.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I never said ID is a pseudoscience. I know it is a theory put forward by some who feel uncomfortable with the idea we exist on pure chance (ooo, inflammatory) that relies far to much on uncertain areas of evolution and things like probability (ooo, inflammatory)

ID is a theory was put forth long before the theory of evolution was established, that post alone proves your ignorant of ID's origins.Id originates from greek philosophy, The Philosophical arguments such as the Logos which is the described by the likes of Heraclitus in the 5th century B.C. Plato later on described another theory which revolved around the natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Foucoult proposed the sea could be turned into lemonade. Key word: proposed. Proposed. Tesla didn't really achieve anything with them while he was alive. People had been dreaming of weather control long before Tesla came up with it, and none of it has materialised - why, because if it is possible we are not at that point yet. Fact: Just because you dislike how science is handling itself does not mean that that science is somehow holding down things like cars that run on air and the cure to aids. Fact: Just because you like the sound of theories Tesla made does not in fact mean they can be, or ever will be realised - quite possibly because they are absurd of pipe dreams. Edison, Da Vinci, many great scientists came up with theories about things that, in retrospect, turned out to be little more then fanciful hopes, or down right madness.


Absurd pipe dreams, they said the samething to just about any scientist that made an "Absurd" claim, such as alexander Graham Bell and his telephone. Tesla's research is still being applied today yet you for some magically reason believe science has advance to far without him. the man had florescent lightbulbs 50 years before they were introduced ion the market, H.A.A.R.P. is completely founded on his work,Tesla built a giant coil that produced 10 million volts of artificial lightning ( and is the world record holder for the largest man made lightning bolt ever 130 feet). Yeah we sure advance passed him



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

But I am pleased you think that if Tesla and the set up from his time got dropped here that he would be trouncing the massive scientific organisations of today. Seems realistic. Then maybe we could drop a Roman legion in to do battle against a battalion of US armor. I imagine you would like to put $100 on the Roman Legion winning yes?

But anyway, to the original question stemming from Bertrand Russel: do you truly believe that scinece has been shown to be more violent and oppressive then religion?

Science has just replace religion as a dictator, Which claims they know the knowable and whatever does not concide with their thoeries doesn't exsist.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Technically since it is you claiming it is real it is up to you to provide the proof. Governments and scientific institutes had been testing those kind of things since the late 40's. And most of those programs had been mothballed or completly discontinued by the late 80s. Why? Because none of them produced tangible evidence that it was true, or that there was even any reason to continue research. So why don't you post some info from government agencies and scientific institutes that supports your claim? And I mean actually evidence, not the circumstantial stuff Deano and others post. Research reports, testimony of chief scientists... that kind of thing. Make me wonder why if there was so much evidence the research was mostly cut off?

Research stoped LOL, the report from iron moutain revieled that the CIA was still working on mind control, hell the cia even admitted to the public in the new york times in 1980.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And that makes no sense. We give a planet a name, or we leave it with one it was given before - we aren't calling it a god. We need to name things for the purpose of understanding and education, we can't just go "that thing in the sky next to the other thing in the sky near another thing in the sky." Much easier to name something. And there is a difference between worshipping something you know is a natural phenomena, and worshipping something you think is the act of a God, or the god itself. Natural phenomena are not acts of god, nor gods themselves.


And this brings us back to my point, the ancients lived in a conditions much hard in comparison to ours. of course they would worship something that, helps them predict when to crop, provides them light, and is responsible for lfe itself. hence why the sun god is the most important diety in many ancient religion. worship and symbolism does not change there achievements. which is the point your trying to make.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Once again you are trying to change the argument. You claim it is absurd man came from apes, I say it is just as absurd, if not more so, to say that man was the result of some god spitting on some dust.

Statistacally speaking it's absurd for life to orignate from lifeless matter but, flukist logic dictates as long as there exsist a small chance it could have happened, how cute.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Oh yes. Erich Von Daniken. Author of "Chariots of the Gods." The man who believes that human affairs have been influence bu ETs since before history began. The man whose interpretations of hieroglyphs do not match up with those of any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist.

They don't match any reputable "epigrapher or archaeologist.", when you refute someone you give an evidence of their work and why it's wrong, not someone disagreeing with them.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

How much research have I done? I am currently in the third year of university for my course in psychology/psychiatry, and I get a certain number of elective spots which I dedicate to history (Roman and Chinese being my favorites.) I like to think this makes me well read. And I am afraid to say that the historical community as a whole finds Danikens claims as unproven and down right absurd at times. They accuse him of operating from an erroneous hypothesis based upon incorrectly interpreted facts, they claim he is far to willing to draw his own conclusions from vague historical sources. They note he has been caught up in many frauds (including the falsification of archaeological artifacts.) They note he operates under the outdated historical stance of eurocentrism, and possibly a theological one.


I never asked for your credentials, I asked for your research notes on the subject at hand and you just stated the opinon of the historical community, I wonder why you didn't recite your own opinion on the matter? is it because you don't know his research and rely on someone else's opinion on it,if you wish to debate the "Ancient astronaut theory I'll gladly do it.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Now I have put up with you again and again saying I am just following someone else's claim. That to express any support of a historical or scientific stance is an expression of ignorance. Tell me.... how is what you are doing here any different? You seem to have chucked you support firmly behind Daniken who can claim virtually no support from the historical community. Who, as Sagan noted "needs extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims" - evidence he can't produce. Other then his hieroglyphs which no body has been able to say support his stance. Seems to me you are being hypocritical:

I just cited his work, like once I never said he's was correct. I agree he may have a point but it's yet to be seen. hence why I study on my own and look up fact, as opposed to just taking up a stance because the historical community says so


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Oh yes. Get a second opinion - how about the fact that the vast majority of the historical community do not support his claims? So why don't you just make a nice long list of all the people that could be called credible who do, and all the evidence you base it on? I know he has supporters, but they are no where near as many or as credited and reputed as the veritable legions who think he is a crank. Because it seems to me you are just following what someone else says.

I don't rely on people's opinions for work and a second opinion means one that disagree's with your point of view; I've done that before.
If you disagree with mr.Dankien, give me an explanation on why his work is flawed as opposed to saying "The historical society said so". what's the point of you citing your credentials if you can't even debate for yourself.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How much research have you done at all? You make all these bold claims about science and how the scientific community works, how much science are you actually involved in?

Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?

Enough to not know what constitutes scientific theory, to not care that there is no proof behind and still claim its somehow science?

Enough to know absolutely nothing about the processes involved in submission of scientific literature?

Which esteemed institute did you obtain your credentials in order to be such an eminent authority on the scientific process and community?

Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

Originally posted by The thinker
Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Extra credit for knowing the technique she used.
Off the top of my head...

X-ray crystallography, I believe. And Watson and Crick took advantage of her work.

Originally posted by The thinker
No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

Science is not tearing religion apart. Hardcore, thick headed, religious fanatics are being torn apart by science. People only see these fanatics having trouble with science, and so they make generalized statements like:

"Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?"

"Its all a matter of time before it dies."

"Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn apart by science"

So, my response would be:

Fact is, there will be some flaws in religion. People make mistakes. But the majority of religion still holds.

Originally posted by Regret
Science is not tearing religion apart. Hardcore, thick headed, religious fanatics are being torn apart by science. People only see these fanatics having trouble with science, and so they make generalized statements like:

"Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?"

"Its all a matter of time before it dies."

"Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn apart by science"

So, my response would be:

Fact is, there will be some flaws in religion. People make mistakes. But the majority of religion still holds.
QFT, QFE.

Originally posted by The thinker
No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

No science is taking religions place, Empirical science is the only evidence of many theories which people rant like it's fact. and whatever isn't taken seriously is dismissed.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

I am very glad of the double negative there, otherwise I'd think you were completely worthless.

Credentials show how they went about learning. It is important because knowing where a person learned what they know impacts the validity of what they claim. The detractor that went to the "Christian Theological School for the Downplaying of Scientific Evidence" would probably not have a valid understanding of the subject of science. Now, if the detractor went to MIT, I would probably be more likely to consider them to have a valid understanding of the subject of science, and thus their opinion would hold more weight. Now, schools aren't always the only source for credential. If you worked with a respected exper in a field of study, and you dealt with the subject in this work, you might have a strong understanding of the subject.

Originally posted by FeceMan
QFT, QFE.

Sorry, I am not sure as to what those mean.

Originally posted by Regret
I am very glad of the double negative there, otherwise I'd think you were completely worthless.

Credentials show how they went about learning. It is important because knowing where a person learned what they know impacts the validity of what they claim.


Why can't someone's work prove, what there capable of instead of their institution? I don't care if your a bum on the street. if you have valid work with solid facts, than you should have a point.


Originally posted by Regret

The detractor that went to the "Christian Theological School for the Downplaying of Scientific Evidence" would probably not have a valid understanding of the subject of science. Now, if the detractor went to MIT, I would probably be more likely to consider them to have a valid understanding of the subject of science, and thus their opinion would hold more weight. Now, schools aren't always the only source for credential. If you worked with a respected exper in a field of study, and you dealt with the subject in this work, you might have a strong understanding of the subject.



No ofense, but that's bias, someone's work should give them merit more so than their school.

Originally posted by Regret
Sorry, I am not sure as to what those mean.
Quoted for truth, quoted for emphasis.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Why can't someone's work prove, what there capable of instead of their institution? I don't care if your a bum on the street. if you have valid work with solid facts, than you should have a point.

My response was to this:

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

You were saying credentials were worthless. That is a foolish opinion.

Someone's work can show what they are capable of. It just requires a more stringent examination of their methodology if they do not have the educational backing. The education shows dedication to a manner of work, the further they progressed the stronger their dedication to that manner of work.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No ofense, but that's bias, someone's work should give them merit more so than their school.

Work can give them merit, but it does not always. What gives their work merit is the references thy used for their work. If they did not refer to someone else's work they probably wasted a lot of time doing redundant work. It is possible that they are a fool that stumbled on something if they worked this way. It does not necessarily lend them merit, but it could.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Quoted for truth, quoted for emphasis.

Alright, thanks.

So they were in agreement then?

Originally posted by Regret




You were saying credentials were worthless. That is a foolish opinion.

Someone's work can show what they are capable of. It just requires a more stringent examination of their methodology if they do not have the educational backing. The education shows dedication to a manner of work, the further they progressed the stronger their dedication to that manner of work.

But education DOES NOT Guarantee anything but a sturdy background, the work is always evidence. I say it's foolish to base a debate on credentials. If the persons work has solid irrefutable facts why would his credentials matter?


Originally posted by Regret

Work can give them merit, but it does not always. What gives their work merit is the references thy used for their work. If they did not refer to someone else's work they probably wasted a lot of time doing redundant work. It is possible that they are a fool that stumbled on something if they worked this way. It does not necessarily lend them merit, but it could.

The Ends justify the means, Yes your right it important to have references but that doesn't change the fact that new laws will appear to replace the old.

What if Science is a way of explaining what God did?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But education DOES NOT Guarantee anything but a sturdy background, the work is always evidence. I say it's foolish to base a debate on credentials. If the persons work has solid irrefutable facts why would his credentials matter?

And how many people here will be posting their names and work for you to see that it is valid? I am a Psychologist. I have studied through doctorate level education, plus post doc. Now, given this, my statements should hold more work than many of those here as to psychology and neurobiology than most of those here, if for no other reason than my education. I also have work, but I will not be giving my name out for you to research my work. You will have to rely on the knowledge that I have done the education.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Ends justify the means, Yes your right it important to have references but that doesn't change the fact that new laws will appear to replace the old.

Never disagreed here, I only state that those that have the education probably know more than those that do not.

Originally posted by mattrab
What if Science is a way of explaining what God did?

Like it was said before, science and religion were the same before the "Age of Enlightment". then a new form of science which dwelled in materialism and scientisim was born.

Originally posted by Regret
And how many people here will be posting their names and work for you to see that it is valid? I am a Psychologist. I have studied through doctorate level education, plus post doc. Now, given this, my statements should hold more work than many of those here as to psychology and neurobiology than most of those here, if for no other reason than my education. I also have work, but I will not be giving my name out for you to research my work. You will have to rely on the knowledge that I have done the education.


You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.


Originally posted by Regret

Never disagreed here, I only state that those that have the education probably know more than those that do not.

An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.

I won't argue with your personal opinion on the subject. Any professional will disagree with you, as well as anyone that will be considering giving you money either as compensation for employment or as money for consultation. An educated individual will be given more respect and deemed more credible to those people.

Now, "don't verify nothing", this is bad grammar, and you are stating that credentials verify things by using a double negative. For future reference most people that are considered credible use proper grammar.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.

Actually, it does. You can deny this, but society as a whole disagrees, and you are of no consequence when others are considering credentials.

Originally posted by Regret
I won't argue with your personal opinion on the subject. Any professional will disagree with you, as well as anyone that will be considering giving you money either as compensation for employment or as money for consultation. An educated individual will be given more respect and deemed more credible to those people.

Who said anything about money, The main objective of science is to better human life. yes their is profit involved. but If Someone's research is Irrefutable, why does it matter if he's not qualified his works speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Regret

Now, "don't verify nothing", this is bad grammar, and you are stating that credentials verify things by using a double negative. For future reference most people that are considered credible use proper grammar.


And this isn't english class, it's Kmc you understand what i'm saying so that's that.


Originally posted by Regret

Actually, it does. You can deny this, but society as a whole disagrees, and you are of no consequence when others are considering credentials..

I already know that, I don't really care what society thinks. social constructs are created by those who have power. if you have control over society you can make anyone percieve your reality with social constructs and labels. Bottom line is the ends justify the means and Established science is very bias. I can give many examples of this.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Who said anything about money, The main objective of science is to better human life. yes their is profit involved. but If Someone's research is Irrefutable, why does it matter if he's not qualified his works speaks for itself.

We are talking about credibility, not science at the moment. And the work does speak for itself, not necessarily for that someone.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And this isn't english class, it's Kmc you understand what i'm saying so that's that.

Yes, but, my opinion of your credibility is less because you use improper grammar.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I already know that, I don't really care what society thinks. social constructs are created by those who have power. if you have control over society you can make anyone percieve your reality with social constructs and labels. Bottom line is the ends justify the means and Established science is very bias. I can give many examples of this.

That is all fine and good, but the work does not always lead to credibility. The work may be good, but that someone may not gain credibility due to it.

--------------------
An example of credibility effecting the timeliness of betterment of human life through science:

Who was the first person to come up with what is now termed Pavlovian conditioning?

It might surprise you to know that Pavlov was not the first. A man by the name of E.B. Twitmyer presented a paper on the subject (that had been completed two years earlier) to the APA prior to Pavlov's report. His credibility was lacking and so his findings were viewed as lacking as well.

Prior to Twitmyer was Alois Kreidl in 1896. He wasn't interested in the subject, and so the finding was not pursued by the community at large.

--------------------

Credibility can be an asset, lack of credibility is often a hindrance.

Originally posted by Regret
We are talking about credibility, not science at the moment. And the work does speak for itself, not necessarily for that someone.

That makes no sense, How can someone's work not represent his credibility?


Originally posted by Regret

Yes, but, my opinion of your credibility is less because you use improper grammar.

And I told you what Ithink of your opinion.


Originally posted by Regret

That is all fine and good, but the work does not always lead to credibility. The work may be good, but that someone may not gain credibility due to it.

--------------------
An example of credibility effecting the timeliness of betterment of human life through science:

Who was the first person to come up with what is now termed Pavlovian conditioning?

It might surprise you to know that Pavlov was not the first. A man by the name of E.B. Twitmyer presented a paper on the subject (that had been completed two years earlier) to the APA prior to Pavlov's report. His credibility was lacking and so his findings were viewed as lacking as well.

Prior to Twitmyer was Alois Kreidl in 1896. He wasn't interested in the subject, and so the finding was not pursued by the community at large.

--------------------

Credibility can be an asset, lack of credibility is often a hindrance.

And you just proved my point, Established science is heavily bias, and uses unfair POV. you have yet to explain WHY someone's credibility effects his work with out mentioning someone's opinion.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, because that is what I was addressing in my post. That's what I was talking about. Completely. You caught me, you with your italics and science.

If you insist on referring to Intelligent Design as IDT, i.e. Intelligent Design Theory, by all means, explain how it qualifies as a scientific:

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
That makes no sense, How can someone's work not represent his credibility?

And I told you what Ithink of your opinion.

And you just proved my point, Established science is heavily bias, and uses unfair POV. you have yet to explain WHY someone's credibility effects his work with out mentioning someone's opinion.

No one ever said scientists were not biased, we have been speaking about credibility, not work. We are discussing it because when someone debates something on the forum the only thing that means anything is the credibility of that individual and his sources. If those two things mean nothing to you, then there is no reason to speak with you further.

Life is unfair, sad but true. People's opinions are all that matters often. Very few people will ever take your opinion, let alone you, seriously without some form of education behind you. You will be limited in your possibilities.

You appear to need much more help than I am willing to give. I don't know what you do, but I hope that I never have to rely on you to do anything that might impact my life in any way.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Then you'll know that IDT isn't just based off of "EVOLUTION IS WRONG", I presume.

I presume that you know for a theory to be scientific, it must be observable, testable, replicatable, falsifiable, make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena, etc.?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you insist on referring to Intelligent Design as IDT, i.e. Intelligent Design Theory, by all means, explain how it qualifies as a scientific: It's been posted many times, why don't you re-read the thread thjat post information on it and tell me why it's not a theory?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.



Originally posted by Blue nocturne
An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.

That is exactly what it means.

Originally posted by Regret
No one ever said scientists were not biased, we have been speaking about credibility, not work. We are discussing it because when someone debates something on the forum the only thing that means anything is the credibility of that individual and his sources. If those two things mean nothing to you, then there is no reason to speak with you further.

Life is unfair, sad but true. People's opinions are all that matters often. Very few people will ever take your opinion, let alone you, seriously without some form of education behind you. You will be limited in your possibilities.

You appear to need much more help than I am willing to give. I don't know what you do, but I hope that I never have to rely on you to do anything that might impact my life in any way.

I'm not asking you to take my word, I dwell in facts and if you want them I can always post them.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's been posted many times, why don't you re-read the thread thjat post information on it and tell me why it's not a theory?

Because it is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about the natural world and its phenomena.

You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

slam

Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.



Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.

So what merit does it hold.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.

Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.
slam

Do some research before attacking credible science.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You didn't even elaborate why, you just made a claim as usual. what's the poiont in debating someone like that.

How many times must it be explained to you that the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof to substantiate it?

If it is your claim that Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, then you must explain how it is observable, testable, replicatable, and falsifiable, and explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How many times must it be explained to you that the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof to substantiate it?

If it is your claim that Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, then you must explain how it is observable, testable, replicatable, and falsifiable, and explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

And I did several times in a previous thread, Not one person gave me a response.

Originally posted by Regret
slam

Do some research before attacking credible science.

Typical response, instead of telling me why I'm wrong. you just tell me to do some research (Which I have)


-The mechanism of Evolution are random, Mutations are random and so are the results, same applies for natural selection. so how does evolution make any predictions as to their effect on any organism.


-Evolution has never been witnesses.


-No, experiment has even proved evolutions claim of mutations creating traits, so I don't even understand how a mutation is a mechanism.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And I did several times in a previous thread, Not one person gave me a response.

If Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, and you have explained how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory several times, then it should not be difficult for you to answer the following questions:

How is Intelligent Design observable?

How is Intelligent Design testable, and how are the results replicatable?

How is Intelligent Design falsifiable?

What predictions does Intelligent Design make about the natural world and its phenomena?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evolution is not observable, testable, replicatable, or falsifiable. that doesn't stop you from accepting it as a valid theory.



Evolution has never been observed.

No test has ever shown mutations create new traits.

Evolution doesn't make any predictions because it's mechanism are random.

So what merit does it hold.

The Mind of Observable. Hence Psychology.

Development is Observable. Hence Evolution.

There is so much evidence to back up Evolution, so much more than any religion has to offer.

Why don't you actually READ a book on this before you go making these uneducated claims, because obviously for you to make statements like this you don't know the first thing about the topic.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Typical response, instead of telling me why I'm wrong. you just tell me to do some research (Which I have)

And due to lack of education you make claims about what that research stated.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
-The mechanism of Evolution are random, Mutations are random and so are the results, same applies for natural selection. so how does evolution make any predictions as to their effect?

It does not make predictions as to the effect. It predicts that alterations will occur, and they do. The mechanism is not "random" it is based in procreation. Differences between individual specimen is what is meant by mutation, not typically some radical difference. You have various mutations that are different than everyone else, you also have some that are similar to some people but different from others. These are the type of things that is referred to.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
-Evolution has never been witnesses.

Evolution from species to species? Or in general? General aspects of evolution have been witnessed.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
-No, experiment has even proved evolutions claim of mutations creating traits, so i don't even understand how a mutation is a mechanism.

What do you mean by traits?

.



Here you go adam.

Originally posted by Regret



It does not make predictions as to the effect. It predicts that alterations will occur, and they do. The mechanism is not "random" it is based in procreation. Differences between individual specimen is what is meant by mutation, not typically some radical difference. You have various mutations that are different than everyone else, you also have some that are similar to some people but different from others. These are the type of things that is referred to.


Alterations/mutations that have an effect on phenotypes are rare, Just saying mutaion will alter something is pretty vague. If evolution claims mutations create survival traits or traits in general, then it should have proofs to back that up. because with out proving that the only thing evolution can say is that natrual selction effects the ratio of breeds.

Originally posted by Regret

Evolution from species to species? Or in general? General aspects of evolution have been witnessed.
Or in general, besides species to species what other instance would I be talking about?


Originally posted by Regret

What do you mean by traits?


Characteristics.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
ID is a theory was put forth long before the theory of evolution was established, that post alone proves your ignorant of ID's origins.Id originates from greek philosophy, The Philosophical arguments such as the Logos which is the described by the likes of Heraclitus in the 5th century B.C. Plato later on described another theory which revolved around the natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature.

I also know for a fact that the theory of intelligent influences from the classical periods is vastly different in intent and belief then the theory of ID today which very much owes a great deal to certain theorists reacting against the theory of evolution. Do not try and make out the works of Plato and Aristotle somehow support modern day ID theorists (I hold Plato and Aristotle in far higher regards then I do most of todays ID theorists)



What on earth is in your head? You are the one claiming he was unknown and his ideas had been unfairly quashed. I from my first post told you that he was far better known then you gave him credit for. And of course his work is still used today as well (I am fairly sure I also said something to the effect of "it forms the basis of many modern thoughts" - or maybe I should specify- his works that actually have some basis. No weather machines, but plenty other ideas. And that is your gripe - that science isn't spending billions on Tesla and his weather machine and earthquake maker.



What absurdity. What they don't understand is stated as such. Things that people come up with but have no proof for, they are stated as not existing. Until there is some reason for scientists to believe there is an intelligent designer or similar, they aren't going to claim it exists, especially, when, despite your bias, they have a perfectly functional theory called evolution.



Look at my post. Notice I said that many government agencies and researchers looked into it. Notice I said most of them had been stopped by the late 80s. So how does what you just posted refute the fact science found the field less then, shall we say, strongly evidenced?



I never implied there achievements were less because of it. In fact I am sure once at least I commented on it being admirable. Your stance slides so much. It hasn't so far given any reason for me to change my mind of the claim that a good portion of ancient religion was an attempt to understand the natural world. All you are saying is they realised the sun as important and worshipped it. They still thought there was something divine in its workings, and it wasn't. Doesn't make the ancient cultures more or less great.



Now, now, bitterness just because I refused to let you change the subject is not an admirable feature. I would remind you, again, that you were talking about the evolutionary step from primates to homo sapian, not about the beginning of life in general. And lets face it - a very low probability does not equal NO probability, and statistically speaking a low probability of it happening is still more proof for it then God getting some dust and doing it.



Where as to support your claim you give us the man in questions who is dubious? I stand by what I said - not a single reputable epigrapher (some one who studies writings and engravings) or archaeologist has ever looked at those hieroglyphs and said "Yes, Daniken is right." But I bet you would like me to post the titles of books and journal articles wouldn't you? Then you could say "LOL So you are just accepting someone else's word"



No, you asked me what research I had done. I told you - ancient history courses these days run more to historiography to simple regurgitation of facts. My preferred courses are Roman and Chinese history, but I have done Egyptian. Danikan, was, on more then one occasion, used in a lecture as an example of a questionable historian - that is operating on faulty premises, making interpretations of hieroglyphs that do not stand up to any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist, his own potentially racist opinions of history and in some cases the actual falsification of historical artifacts - if you had any understanding of the historical process (as you appear to have none on the scientific one) you would know that those kinds of flaws in a historians work make the validity of it drop down. This was delivered in university lectures - perhaps you want me to give you a plane ticket so you can come down here and accuse the professors of bias and following the crowed? After all, what is their life time of work in history to your faith?

And my opinion matches the stance of the historical community - you see I am able to combine my opinion with fact. But if it wasn't clear enough? I think Daniken is a crackpot fraud who has made a fortune selling books knocking the ancient easter cultures as unable to construct their own monuments. I don't know whether he believes it or not, but I think none of his claims are worth the paper they are written on. This is my opinion after reading "Chariot of the Gods", this is my opinion after reading other books on Egyptian history. This remains my opinion after university lectures, and this remains my opinion here - so far it is you that has failed to give any reason to feel differently about him. Most books don't deal with him at all but present a history vastly different to his (with actual evidence.) Some do, and they are quite dismissive. See - I got my opinion AFTER reading his book. It was always the same - my opinion of him. However I have found, to my distinct pleasure, that my opinion appears to be one shared by the historical community.



Hypocrite. The opinion of the historical community is based upon the work of the historical community. You imply it seems to to believe a group is right automatically makes an argument less valid - despite the fact the stance being made by a field of experts. They are in line with what I think, of course I will agree with the relevant opinions. And sometimes, in order to learn, we must look at people who actually know what they are talking about.

It would, I believe, be impossible to win a debate with you. I comment on attitudes in certain communities and you accuse me of just going with the flow. I state my opinion, you want hard facts. You would twist and obfuscate hard facts as products of biased groups - such as you anti evolution stance. But anyway, I said above my problems based with Daniken, and I said why historians don't agree with him (let alone his lack of evidence supporting any of his claims, except the stuff he falsified.)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Alterations/mutations that have an effect on phenotypes are rare, Just saying mutaion will alter something is pretty vague. If evolution claims mutations create survival traits or traits in general, then it should have proofs to back that up. because with out proving that the only thing evolution can say is that natrual selction effects the ratio of breeds.

Look up the finch study or the peppered moth, survival traits that have occurred due to evolution.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Or in general, besides species to species what other instance would I be talking about?

Evolution is not only the idea that a species could evolve. That is a very small portion of evolution. Evolution is the tendency of children to be similar to their parents, thus small differences (mutations) that occur can be passed from parent to child. If a trait increases reproduction in an environment where reproduction is limited that trait's occurrence will increase within that group.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Characteristics.

You still did not define your meaning. Characteristics is just as ambiguous as traits was. Traits and Characteristics have various definitions that are widely different. Physical traits I stated a few examples above. Behavioral ones can be found in the fox farm study.

I'm so glad this exploded in my absence.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm so glad this exploded in my absence.

Evolution is not accepted because it hasn't been observed.
Divine creation hasn't been observed either.
But divine creation was written down.
Evolution is written down too.
But it wasn't written in the Bible.
What makes the Bible special?
The Bible was written/inspired by God.
But that hasn't been observed either.
Doesn't have to be observed. It just says so in the Bible.
Why is that okay?
Because the Bible was written/inspired by God.
But that hasn't been observed.
Doesn't matter. It says so in the Bible.
And the Bible is special because...?
It was written/inspired by God.
But that hasn't been observed.
Doesn't have to be. It just says so in the Bible.
...
So...the Bible is special because it was written/inspired by God, and we know it was written/inspired by God because it says so in the Bible.
...
punk

Tis a cruel and reasonless cycle is that one. It is so disappointing sometimes to see people think it acceptable.

evolution HAS been observed. its observed every damn day as differents strains of viruses and single celled organisms evolve from the same one and are DOCUMENTED under laboratory conditions. also every day diseases evolve resistance to their old drugs and liyterally billions are piut in to making new antyi biotics and curative drugs. any1 who says thers no proof of evolution is full of crap.

on the other hand, far from even having EVIDENDCE{let alone proof} to back up its claims, the bible has direct PROOF denying its claims.

Originally posted by Regret
Look up the finch study or the peppered moth, survival traits that have occurred due to evolution.

I Gave a rebuttal on why that claim was wrong:

Originally posted by Blue nocturne

The grey peppered moth is the my favorite example you flukist use, light tone moths were a majority of the grey peppered moth population while dark toned were the minority. soot from factories darkened the trees that they perched on causing the light ones to stand out and become easy prey. decades later dark tone moths become the majority because of they match the darkened tree's and because of that flukist draw a conclusion. problem is all that took place was natural selection one variation of grey peppered moths decreased while the other increased because it was less likely to be eaten ( Dark tone moth's) and that's evolution to you guy's it's ridicules.



Originally posted by Regret

Evolution is not only the idea that a species could evolve. That is a very small portion of evolution. Evolution is the tendency of children to be similar to their parents, thus small differences (mutations) that occur can be passed from parent to child. If a trait increases reproduction in an environment where reproduction is limited that trait's occurrence will increase within that group.

And here's where your argument falls apart,When have mutations ever been observed creating new traits please give me an example.

And my second question, when do mutations often do mutations effect phenotypes?



Originally posted by Regret

You still did not define your meaning. Characteristics is just as ambiguous as traits was. Traits and Characteristics have various definitions that are widely different. Physical traits I stated a few examples above. Behavioral ones can be found in the fox farm study.


Forget it, I'm not intrested in doing another debate where I have to repeat myself.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And here's where your argument falls apart,When have mutations ever been observed creating new traits please give me an example. Various point mutations in Drosophila.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Various point mutations in Drosophila.

And since when do point mutations effect phenotypes?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And since when do point mutations effect phenotypes? Do you actually want me to pull up some of the literature on the various point mutations with effects on phenotype in Drosophila (and other organisms)? And if so do you actually intend to read any of it?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you actually want me to pull up some of the literature on the various point mutations with effects on phenotype in Drosophila (and other organisms)? And if so do you actually intend to read any of it?

Go ahead.

mutations can and DO infact phenotypes just look at virology and ull find ur answer more easily than larger more complex organisms. on that note though i do agree partly with nocturne about tesla and the views of the scientific community in general. the very mechanism of posting ur ideas in PAPERS is very crude and specially since if it isnt mainstream or from a very notable university it normally isnt accepted or taken seriously. plus tesla was a mysterious man some say he had created a generater working on power vacumes and generating energy from nothing. true or not more research should be done on his work.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
mutations can and DO infact phenotypes just look at virology and ull find ur answer more easily than larger more complex organisms. on that note though i do agree partly with nocturne about tesla and the views of the scientific community in general. the very mechanism of posting ur ideas in PAPERS is very crude and specially since if it isnt mainstream or from a very notable university it normally isnt accepted or taken seriously. plus tesla was a mysterious man some say he had created a generater working on power vacumes and generating energy from nothing. true or not more research should be done on his work.

I never said they didn't, I said they RARELY Effect phenotypes.

An example for Drosophila
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6428/abs/363449a0.html
Mouse
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/abs/406078a0.html
& Human
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/16/5803

EDIT: The abstracts are available but you'll need access through an institution for the full articles.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An example for Drosophila
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6428/abs/363449a0.html
Mouse
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/abs/406078a0.html
& Human
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/16/5803

EDIT: The abstracts are available but you'll need access through an institution for the full articles.

And this takes us back to the question, when have mutations been observed creating traits.

All those examples show mutations eliminating traits.

Do you know what a point mutation is?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you know what a point mutation is?

A mutation that effects the nucleotide sequence, putting it lightly.

Do you know how immunity works, I'm asking because you gave an example of Drosophila gaining immunity as proof mutations create traits.

It's a single base substitution. You wanted examples of how single changes can cause phenotypic effects. You have them.

I've studied human immunology but am by no means an authority on it. Regardless the article does not deal with immunity. Though feel free to elaborate on whatever you're trying to imply.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's a single base substitution. You wanted examples of how single changes can cause phenotypic effects. You have them.

I've studied human immunology but am by no means an authority on it. Regardless the article does not deal with immunity. Though feel free to elaborate on whatever you're trying to imply.


The article does not deal with immunity?



Do you read your articles?

Cyclodienes are GABAA receptor antagonists. I asked you if you were actually going to read them. Clearly you don't actually want information, you want things to try and pick at. Do you know what immunity is in the context of immunology?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Cyclodienes are GABAA receptor antagonists. I asked you if you were actually going to read them. Clearly you don't actually want information, you want things to try and pick at. Do you know what immunity is in the context of immunology?

And I did read them, hence why asked the question where did it show mutations creating new traits?

You want me to trawl through literature and find articles to your exact requirements? Which will probably lead to an additional restraint on what the requirements are, as has occurred here. Frankly, I can get paid for that.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You want me to trawl through literature and find articles to your exact requirements? Which will probably lead to an additional restraint on what the requirements are, as has occurred here. Frankly, I can get paid for that.

You don't have to do anything just forget it, this isn't evolution vs ID thread anyway.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And I did read them, hence why asked the question where did it show mutations creating new traits?

Have you ever seen an albino creature? Many genetic mutations have shown to have caused albanism.