Page 187 of 439 FirstFirst ... 87137177183184185186187188189190191197237287 ... LastLast
Results 2,791 to 2,805 of 6582
  1. #2791
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    Carbon Dating, Gravity, and far more precepts than you can name FAR outweigh the 3 theories you've brought up prove that it's not a faith of belief but something based on fact and repeatable experiments. You've even failed to mention that Science still labels them Theories aka Unproven unlike fully proven things like Gravity, and while many believe in the Big Bang if the evidence comes out against it it'll be thrown out. The same cannot be said for the religions of the Bible and especially the more fundamentalist believers.

    The fact that many have no response but to label Science a faith in order to discount it since it's too hard to argue against otherwise is a sad fact that is bringing us down as a species, and for proof I provide the American GoP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Nope, not even close. Those are sound scientific theories that work according to our present knowledge, but they are untested and not accepted. They are theories that need evidence to show whether they are actually true or not. Scientist do not dogmatically say, String Theory is true no matter what comes up. They say the math works, but lets see if it is a predictive model. This is how they recently found the Higgs boson, or proved Relativity to be right.

    Scientist do not say, "I have no proof, I just have faith". It is the opposite. They need objective confirmation.

    Science is nothing like religious dogma and I hate this fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
    Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    The good think about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.
    I work in the science field... One the title of Theory does not mean unproven (though it is argument most give by those of a religious nature against them), Theories do not grow up to become Laws they explain them. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains the Law of Gravity, but there will not be a law of General Relativity. The title of Theory goes to something that hasn't been disproven, if a Theory is disproven it will be replaced. The Many-World Theory and String Theory can not be disproven only because we lack the ability and understanding to do so it may belong more in the province of scientific philosophy and regain the title of Interpretation and not Theory. Giving them the title of Theory brings down the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and so on for those such as religious groups to point and say that they are just "Theories".

    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Last edited by Moon Ronin; 08-02-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  2. #2792
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

    As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.
    Example: Fred Hoyel
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  3. #2793
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    There's an old saying: "science advances one funeral at a time."
    I like that.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  4. #2794
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    I work in the science field... One the title of Theory does not mean unproven (though it is argument most give by those of a religious nature against them), Theories do not grow up to become Laws they explain them. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains the Law of Gravity, but there will not be a law of General Relativity. The title of Theory goes to something that hasn't been disproven, if a Theory is disproven it will be replaced. The Many-World Theory and String Theory can not be disproven only because we lack the ability and understanding to do so it may belong more in the province of scientific philosophy and regain the title of Interpretation and not Theory. Giving them the title of Theory brings down the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and so on for those such as religious groups to point and say that they are just "Theories".

    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Of course you are right. And I apologize for my poor use of language. Our point distinguishing science from religion is still valid. They don't have the same faith as religious believers. There belief is more like a best guess. Religious faith is often touted as something for which there can be no proof, and that with proof there is no faith. This is different from saying I believe there was once life on Mars or some other idea that awaits proof.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  5. #2795
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Because religions aren't really competing for followers based on the objective merit of their ideas, the more organized and cohesive belief systems tend to win out over loosely defined notions of spirituality. The Abrahamic religions have been successful precisely because their leaders had no qualms about treating faith as a team sport and whipping believers into line on even the most minor points of doctrine, the local cults of ancestor and nature worship that they competed against simply couldn't mobilize their followers in anywhere near the same manner and died out one by one.

    Science simply does not do this, the process of scientific inquiry and discovery is completely separate from that of using scientific ideas as backing to win popular support for policy proposals. The number of people who believe in climate change and are willing to support proposals to reverse global warming has absolutely zero bearing on the legitimacy of climate science and its ideas, precisely because scientific principles can be tested and there is no need to use popularity as a proxy for truth.

  6. #2796
    Mighty Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Or believers are atheists about every other God but theirs.
    Everyone is an atheist. The only difference is that some atheists disbelieve in one more god than the rest.

  7. #2797
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    Everyone is an atheist. The only difference is that some atheists disbelieve in one more god than the rest.
    Yeah, that is much better said.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  8. #2798
    Mighty Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Yeah, that is much better said.
    I stole it from Dan Brown the author.

    His book Origin is largely about the atheist vs christian viewpoints of creation and this was a saying of the main atheist character.

  9. #2799
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    I stole it from Dan Brown the author.

    His book Origin is largely about the atheist vs christian viewpoints of creation and this was a saying of the main atheist character.
    I even like it and I consider myself one of the faithful, even if I don't go to church anymore(I can't remember the last time I felt like a church had anything to do with Jesus after my grandfather had to retire from preaching).
    Dark does not mean deep.

  10. #2800
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    I stole it from Dan Brown the author.

    His book Origin is largely about the atheist vs christian viewpoints of creation and this was a saying of the main atheist character.
    I remember it floating around on the internet as a Ricky Gervais quote long before then.

  11. #2801
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    I stole it from Dan Brown the author.

    His book Origin is largely about the atheist vs christian viewpoints of creation and this was a saying of the main atheist character.
    All Dan Brown's Robert Langdon books are the same and have gotten very boring and predictable.
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  12. #2802
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,869

    Default

    So, with my shoulders slumped in defeat and my reputation battered, I'm forced to recant my earlier hubris. An element of doubt has crept into my worldview. The Earth could be flat after all.

    What changed? I finally came across a highly intelligent and convincing Flat Earther. There is a fellow in South Dakota that is performing experimentations out of his shed that are putting the scientific community to shame. Previously, I'd been under the impression that all Flat Earthers were credulous buffoons whose idea of 'research' was to watch the same old stupid Youtube videos. Not so. I'm almost afraid to post this video as I'm wary of the paradigm shift in human understanding that could ensue:



    Flat Out. Better than Caltech. If that's not controversial then I don't know what is.

  13. #2803
    Invincible Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    20,471

    Default

    Yep, pure genius.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  14. #2804
    Astonishing Member TheRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,621

    Default

    I wish more films got sequels.

  15. #2805
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    AMC (the cable network, not the theatre chain) should change its name. When you're all about TV shows, you ain't a movie classics business no more.
    Last edited by DrNewGod; 08-13-2019 at 04:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •