Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

So called science, the false religion

GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making the wildest speculations of scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce relativity, which paved the way for the bizarre world of quantum physics. Since Darwin and Einstein, science has come to be viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance for its practitioners to arrive at their answers.

The problem with all of those "truths" is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo."way off base. Newton".hate to say it. Microevolution, which was actually documented, yes"but macroevolution".species turning into other species" ridiculous from its first glimmer. Even Darwin doubted it could be proved, but he saw no other viable alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.

Galileo"s fixed solar system took a hard shot to the chops in 1950, when a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He "called his shot," a la Joe Namath and Babe Ruth, when he predicted the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo convinced early mainstream scientists that the Evening Star was a frozen blob. Velikovsky"s "outrageous" prediction was proved true, as were several others he made, yet no success he enjoyed could rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. When the subject of his book,"Worlds in Collision, was announced, scientists ganged up on his publisher to force its cancellation. It was later published by another company and became a bestseller. Yet sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists who remember the black eye he gave them, just as Galileo was reviled by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove Velikovsky was correct.

This is not "forbidden" knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream labors to suppress any information that in any way could seriously challenge one of their baseline beliefs. When faced with such a challenge, they heap as much scorn as possible on it, then studiously ignore it, refusing to discuss it, saying it has "already been put in its proper place." Yet it is precisely these volatile subjects they should be investigating to the hilt. Take Velikovsky"s evidence for impermanence in the solar system, and that planetary catastrophe can occur at any time.

This idea is especially threatening to scientists because they are so adamant that the solar system has remained the way it is today since it gathered itself together out of a primeval cloud of dust and gas. If mainstream scientists had to admit to any degree of error regarding such a fundamental aspect of their knowledge base, it would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about"anything, anything at all, in order to prevent anybody from doubting where they absolutely"must"be correct: the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them"creation.

Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says "God did it all," science insists "Nature did it all." From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let"s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.

Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical "dance of the spheres" that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that. In addition, science still does not fully understand gravity or how it works.

Newton knew that as a binding force in nature, gravity was vanishingly weak:In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he [Newton] wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another,"is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.""After celestial bodies were in place, their great masses did produce gravitational effects on each other, as Newton noted, but to say that gravity was how they came together in the first place".that was nonsense.

Despite Newton knowing gravity could not be nature"s binding force, today scientists inflict on the world the specious notion that infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space aggregated into ever larger pieces. It could never happen. Yet cosmologists have decided to support the absurdity that somehow in the ancient past it could. So, why is this? Why won"t mainstream scientists consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don"t want to give up the early foundations of cosmology laid by Newton and Einstein!

Cosmology should have been revamped decades ago, but that would mean scrapping all that science claims to know now. They can"t do that because only the "outsiders" who support the Electric Universe theory know about the truth of it. (See"www.Thunderbolts.info). Scientists loathe giving credit to outsiders, even those with credentials to equal their own, which many in the Electric Universe crowd possess. However, many do not, and that"s the sticking point. Outsiders lacking credentials can"t be given credit for being right. To do that makes a mockery of their entire system of exclusivity.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 1:53:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making the wildest speculations of scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce relativity, which paved the way for the bizarre world of quantum physics. Since Darwin and Einstein, science has come to be viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance for its practitioners to arrive at their answers.

The problem with all of those "truths" is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo."way off base. Newton".hate to say it. Microevolution, which was actually documented, yes"but macroevolution".species turning into other species" ridiculous from its first glimmer. Even Darwin doubted it could be proved, but he saw no other viable alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.

Galileo"s fixed solar system took a hard shot to the chops in 1950, when a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He "called his shot," a la Joe Namath and Babe Ruth, when he predicted the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo convinced early mainstream scientists that the Evening Star was a frozen blob. Velikovsky"s "outrageous" prediction was proved true, as were several others he made, yet no success he enjoyed could rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. When the subject of his book,"Worlds in Collision, was announced, scientists ganged up on his publisher to force its cancellation. It was later published by another company and became a bestseller. Yet sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists who remember the black eye he gave them, just as Galileo was reviled by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove Velikovsky was correct.

This is not "forbidden" knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream labors to suppress any information that in any way could seriously challenge one of their baseline beliefs. When faced with such a challenge, they heap as much scorn as possible on it, then studiously ignore it, refusing to discuss it, saying it has "already been put in its proper place." Yet it is precisely these volatile subjects they should be investigating to the hilt. Take Velikovsky"s evidence for impermanence in the solar system, and that planetary catastrophe can occur at any time.

This idea is especially threatening to scientists because they are so adamant that the solar system has remained the way it is today since it gathered itself together out of a primeval cloud of dust and gas. If mainstream scientists had to admit to any degree of error regarding such a fundamental aspect of their knowledge base, it would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about"anything, anything at all, in order to prevent anybody from doubting where they absolutely"must"be correct: the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them"creation.

Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says "God did it all," science insists "Nature did it all." From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let"s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.

Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical "dance of the spheres" that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that. In addition, science still does not fully understand gravity or how it works.

Newton knew that as a binding force in nature, gravity was vanishingly weak:In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he [Newton] wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another,"is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.""After celestial bodies were in place, their great masses did produce gravitational effects on each other, as Newton noted, but to say that gravity was how they came together in the first place".that was nonsense.

Despite Newton knowing gravity could not be nature"s binding force, today scientists inflict on the world the specious notion that infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space aggregated into ever larger pieces. It could never happen. Yet cosmologists have decided to support the absurdity that somehow in the ancient past it could. So, why is this? Why won"t mainstream scientists consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don"t want to give up the early foundations of cosmology laid by Newton and Einstein!

Cosmology should have been revamped decades ago, but that would mean scrapping all that science claims to know now. They can"t do that because only the "outsiders" who support the Electric Universe theory know about the truth of it. (See"www.Thunderbolts.info). Scientists loathe giving credit to outsiders, even those with credentials to equal their own, which many in the Electric Universe crowd possess. However, many do not, and that"s the sticking point. Outsiders lacking credentials can"t be given credit for being right. To do that makes a mockery of their entire system of exclusivity.

There is an old saying (Einstein?) about how old ideas never die-out until the people who hold those ideas do. It's hard to conquer confirmation bias. People tend to latch onto the things which prove what they think rather than to alter their beliefs to accommodate that which opposes their beliefs, even when they struggle not to do so. Many people today refer to scientists as "priests in lab-coats." I'm sure they enjoy their status and would not wish to lose it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:02:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
There's a great rhetorical attraction for antiscience religionists to call science a religion:

1) The ignorant readily believe it;
2) Religion itself is routinely dishonest, corrupt and evasive, so calling science a religion immediately convicts it of the same;
3) It equates the rigour, accountability and diligence of scientific practice to the sloppy and haphazard rhetoric routinely indulged in by theologians and religious apologists, making it seem as though theological doctrine is an epistemological equal.

However, it's a false accusation, for the simple reason that science has numerous virtues religion doesn't, namely that science:

* Is fully accountable and transparent in its methods and evidence;
* Promptly admits ignorance;
* Makes all theories, models and predictions readily falsifiable by evidence;
* Diligently seeks to detect its own imprecision and error, and promptly acknowledges it;
* Embraces diversity of ideas;
* Demands scrupulous honesty as a professional ethic;
* Rapidly accepts the falsification of doctrine, no matter how popular;
* Throws falsehood and error out, and never seeks to reinstitute it;
* Converges to agreement through evidence;
* Shares and collaborates readily, across disciplines and ideas;
* Acknowledges the work of others;
* Demonstrates clear, significant and reliable benefits from its predictions and methods; and
* Admits any diligent, rigorous, accountable empirical study from people of any culture, regardless of tradition, faith or creed.

I can well understand why some religionists are jealous of science. By being more scrupulous, ethical and diligent than any religion, science has earned exactly the kind of intellectual authority religion has always coveted. Its predictive accuracy is better, more detailed and more significant than any body of religious prophecy, its methods are trusted worldwide, and its elites are more professional, accountable and useful than any priest.

You may say science is a religion, Gritty, thought it's not. However, be honest: don't you wish your religion were as good as a science?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:28:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making the wildest speculations of scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce relativity, which paved the way for the bizarre world of quantum physics. Since Darwin and Einstein, science has come to be viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance for its practitioners to arrive at their answers.

The problem with all of those "truths" is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo."way off base. Newton".hate to say it. Microevolution, which was actually documented, yes"but macroevolution".species turning into other species" ridiculous from its first glimmer. Even Darwin doubted it could be proved, but he saw no other viable alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.

Galileo"s fixed solar system took a hard shot to the chops in 1950, when a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He "called his shot," a la Joe Namath and Babe Ruth, when he predicted the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo convinced early mainstream scientists that the Evening Star was a frozen blob. Velikovsky"s "outrageous" prediction was proved true, as were several others he made, yet no success he enjoyed could rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. When the subject of his book,"Worlds in Collision, was announced, scientists ganged up on his publisher to force its cancellation. It was later published by another company and became a bestseller. Yet sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists who remember the black eye he gave them, just as Galileo was reviled by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove Velikovsky was correct.

This is not "forbidden" knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream labors to suppress any information that in any way could seriously challenge one of their baseline beliefs. When faced with such a challenge, they heap as much scorn as possible on it, then studiously ignore it, refusing to discuss it, saying it has "already been put in its proper place." Yet it is precisely these volatile subjects they should be investigating to the hilt. Take Velikovsky"s evidence for impermanence in the solar system, and that planetary catastrophe can occur at any time.

This idea is especially threatening to scientists because they are so adamant that the solar system has remained the way it is today since it gathered itself together out of a primeval cloud of dust and gas. If mainstream scientists had to admit to any degree of error regarding such a fundamental aspect of their knowledge base, it would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about"anything, anything at all, in order to prevent anybody from doubting where they absolutely"must"be correct: the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them"creation.

Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says "God did it all," science insists "Nature did it all." From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let"s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.

Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical "dance of the spheres" that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that. In addition, science still does not fully understand gravity or how it works.

Newton knew that as a binding force in nature, gravity was vanishingly weak:In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he [Newton] wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another,"is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.""After celestial bodies were in place, their great masses did produce gravitational effects on each other, as Newton noted, but to say that gravity was how they came together in the first place".that was nonsense.

Despite Newton knowing gravity could not be nature"s binding force, today scientists inflict on the world the specious notion that infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space aggregated into ever larger pieces. It could never happen. Yet cosmologists have decided to support the absurdity that somehow in the ancient past it could. So, why is this? Why won"t mainstream scientists consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don"t want to give up the early foundations of cosmology laid by Newton and Einstein!

Cosmology should have been revamped decades ago, but that would mean scrapping all that science claims to know now. They can"t do that because only the "outsiders" who support the Electric Universe theory know about the truth of it. (See"www.Thunderbolts.info). Scientists loathe giving credit to outsiders, even those with credentials to equal their own, which many in the Electric Universe crowd possess. However, many do not, and that"s the sticking point. Outsiders lacking credentials can"t be given credit for being right. To do that makes a mockery of their entire system of exclusivity.

http://www.lloydpye.com...

We can tell when the words aren't yours...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:45:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making the wildest speculations of scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce relativity, which paved the way for the bizarre world of quantum physics. Since Darwin and Einstein, science has come to be viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance for its practitioners to arrive at their answers.

The problem with all of those "truths" is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo."way off base. Newton".hate to say it. Microevolution, which was actually documented, yes"but macroevolution".species turning into other species" ridiculous from its first glimmer. Even Darwin doubted it could be proved, but he saw no other viable alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.

Galileo"s fixed solar system took a hard shot to the chops in 1950, when a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He "called his shot," a la Joe Namath and Babe Ruth, when he predicted the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo convinced early mainstream scientists that the Evening Star was a frozen blob. Velikovsky"s "outrageous" prediction was proved true, as were several others he made, yet no success he enjoyed could rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. When the subject of his book,"Worlds in Collision, was announced, scientists ganged up on his publisher to force its cancellation. It was later published by another company and became a bestseller. Yet sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists who remember the black eye he gave them, just as Galileo was reviled by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove Velikovsky was correct.

This is not "forbidden" knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream labors to suppress any information that in any way could seriously challenge one of their baseline beliefs. When faced with such a challenge, they heap as much scorn as possible on it, then studiously ignore it, refusing to discuss it, saying it has "already been put in its proper place." Yet it is precisely these volatile subjects they should be investigating to the hilt. Take Velikovsky"s evidence for impermanence in the solar system, and that planetary catastrophe can occur at any time.

This idea is especially threatening to scientists because they are so adamant that the solar system has remained the way it is today since it gathered itself together out of a primeval cloud of dust and gas. If mainstream scientists had to admit to any degree of error regarding such a fundamental aspect of their knowledge base, it would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about"anything, anything at all, in order to prevent anybody from doubting where they absolutely"must"be correct: the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them"creation.

Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says "God did it all," science insists "Nature did it all." From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let"s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.

Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical "dance of the spheres" that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that. In addition, science still does not fully understand gravity or how it works.

Newton knew that as a binding force in nature, gravity was vanishingly weak:In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he [Newton] wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another,"is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.""After celestial bodies were in place, their great masses did produce gravitational effects on each other, as Newton noted, but to say that gravity was how they came together in the first place".that was nonsense.

Despite Newton knowing gravity could not be nature"s binding force, today scientists inflict on the world the specious notion that infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space aggregated into ever larger pieces. It could never happen. Yet cosmologists have decided to support the absurdity that somehow in the ancient past it could. So, why is this? Why won"t mainstream scientists consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don"t want to give up the early foundations of cosmology laid by Newton and Einstein!

Cosmology should have been revamped decades ago, but that would mean scrapping all that science claims to know now. They can"t do that because only the "outsiders" who support the Electric Universe theory know about the truth of it. (See"www.Thunderbolts.info). Scientists loathe giving credit to outsiders, even those with credentials to equal their own, which many in the Electric Universe crowd possess. However, many do not, and that"s the sticking point. Outsiders lacking credentials can"t be given credit for being right. To do that makes a mockery of their entire system of exclusivity.
Your "work"? What is that exactly? Original research?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:40:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 2:28:37 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700.
http://www.lloydpye.com...

We can tell when the words aren't yours...
I suspected as much, Skep; just didn't bother to match the text in a search engine.

That's shameful, Gritty.

And cheap.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:12:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 4:40:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/19/2015 2:28:37 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700.
http://www.lloydpye.com...

We can tell when the words aren't yours...
I suspected as much, Skep; just didn't bother to match the text in a search engine.

As fast as you came out with your reply, I thought you may have already been familiar with the original work!

That's shameful, Gritty.

And cheap.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:22:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 2:02:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

* Is fully accountable and transparent in its methods and evidence;

- So is every rational activity, including religion.

* Promptly admits ignorance;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Makes all theories, models and predictions readily falsifiable by evidence;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Diligently seeks to detect its own imprecision and error, and promptly acknowledges it;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Embraces diversity of ideas;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Demands scrupulous honesty as a professional ethic;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Rapidly accepts the falsification of doctrine, no matter how popular;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Throws falsehood and error out, and never seeks to reinstitute it;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Converges to agreement through evidence;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Shares and collaborates readily, across disciplines and ideas;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Acknowledges the work of others;

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Demonstrates clear, significant and reliable benefits from its predictions and methods; and

- So do every rational activity, including religion.

* Admits any diligent, rigorous, accountable empirical study from people of any culture, regardless of tradition, faith or creed.

- So do every rational activity, including religion, well, without the last part of "faith & creed".
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:39:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:22:08 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 2:02:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

- So is every rational activity, including religion.
Holding a belief that completely lacks any supporting evidence is not rational, religion is therefore not a rational activity.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:41:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:

Holding a belief that completely lacks any supporting evidence is not rational,

- Sure.

religion is therefore not a rational activity.

- Non-sequitur.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:52:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:41:03 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:

Holding a belief that completely lacks any supporting evidence is not rational,

- Sure.

religion is therefore not a rational activity.

- Non-sequitur.
Statement of fact.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:54:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:41:03 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:

Holding a belief that completely lacks any supporting evidence is not rational,

- Sure.

religion is therefore not a rational activity.

- Non-sequitur.
Statement of fact.

- Bare assertion.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:56:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:54:10 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:52:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:41:03 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 5:39:56 AM, bulproof wrote:

Holding a belief that completely lacks any supporting evidence is not rational,

- Sure.

religion is therefore not a rational activity.

- Non-sequitur.
Statement of fact.

- Bare assertion.
OK Fati, off you go now.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 5:58:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:56:16 AM, bulproof wrote:

OK Fati, off you go now.

- Stuck, huh!?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 6:03:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Exactly... i'm sorry, but what is the problem of calling it a religion? Call it that. It doesn't mean it agrees with any other, it actually works to show their manipulation and idiot-ness... Yes, science is a religion that shows that people can work together in building a world.... not tearing it down. Philosophy can even fall under science, vaguely, but that is what (people like me) that believe in the spiritual do with the scientific...with the same purpose; to move forward. We are the new religion. We will be the new religion and proudly if only to show the people stuck in the past that they are actually making even those people in the past roll over in their grave. I'm under the influence at this point; but yeah... i know i am right.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:03:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 5:22:08 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 2:02:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
science has numerous virtues religion doesn't, namely that science:

* Is fully accountable and transparent in its methods and evidence;
- So is every rational activity, including religion.
* Promptly admits ignorance;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Makes all theories, models and predictions readily falsifiable by evidence;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Diligently seeks to detect its own imprecision and error, and promptly acknowledges it;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Embraces diversity of ideas;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Demands scrupulous honesty as a professional ethic;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Rapidly accepts the falsification of doctrine, no matter how popular;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Throws falsehood and error out, and never seeks to reinstitute it;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Converges to agreement through evidence;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Shares and collaborates readily, across disciplines and ideas;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Acknowledges the work of others;
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Demonstrates clear, significant and reliable benefits from its predictions and methods; and
- So do every rational activity, including religion.
* Admits any diligent, rigorous, accountable empirical study from people of any culture, regardless of tradition, faith or creed.
- So do every rational activity, including religion, well, without the last part of "faith & creed".

Perhaps you could supply for us then, Yassine:

* A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the validation of divine revelations and miracles, and a list of faiths that have submitted their claims to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn claims for failing to meet best practice standards for validity;

* A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the authentication of scriptural documents, and a list of faiths that have submitted their scriptures to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn texts from canon that fail to meet a minimum standard of authenticity;

* A citation to minimum international interfaith best practice for verification of prophecy, and a faith that has ensured all its prophecies can be falsifiable in reasonable time, and that has removed from canon all scriptures with a falsified prophecy;

* A list of faiths that have promptly withdrawn from canon any scripture whose claims have been scientifically falsified; and finally,

* A list of faiths that have withdrawn from canon any scripture contradicted by a better-authenticated scripture from another faith.

These practices are routine in science, and speak to the degree to which science adheres to points I made above.

Such diligence is entirely rational in science, which seeks to detect, expose and correct error promptly, diligently and independently in the service of more precise, accurate, accountable truth.

Now, using the above, can you identify for us a religion that does the same?

We both know you can't identify even one, and so we are forced to conclude that either:

1) religions aren't rational; or
2) they are pursuing a goal other than precise, accurate accountable truth; or
3) both.

Either conclusion supports my contention that religion envies the intellectual authority of science, because it lacks the virtues that won science that authority.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:11:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 6:03:30 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Exactly... i'm sorry, but what is the problem of calling it a religion?
Religion claims moral and intellectual privileges that science has consciously and systematically abandoned.

That abandonment was based on an ethical sensibility religions lack, which is why religions are unable to validate or verify their claims of authority to any independent review, yet are utterly recalcitrant in abandoning unverifiable claims.

That ethical diligence has made science more precise, accurate, robust, relevant and practical over time, just as that lack of ethics has made religion more vague, erroneous, evasive, irrelevant and impractical over time.

Consequently, science does not act as a religion, is more trusted by more people worldwide than any single religion, and has produced a vast range of tangible benefits that not one religion nor all together has ever managed to equal.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 2:52:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 9:03:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

These practices are routine in science, and speak to the degree to which science adheres to points I made above.

- In theory, maybe. In reality, things are much more hectic & complicated than that.

Such diligence is entirely rational in science, which seeks to detect, expose and correct error promptly, diligently and independently in the service of more precise, accurate, accountable truth.

- This relates to rationality, not to Science. & Science is only one rational activity among many many others.

Now, using the above, can you identify for us a religion that does the same?

- Islam.

We both know you can't identify even one,

- You wish.

and so we are forced to conclude that either:

1) religions aren't rational;

- Untrue.

2) they are pursuing a goal other than precise, accurate accountable truth;

- Untrue.

Either conclusion supports my contention that religion envies the intellectual authority of science, because it lacks the virtues that won science that authority.

- Untrue. In fact, the opposite is more likely. Science wishes to have the intellectual authority of religion, for its lasting effect.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 11:27:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 2:52:23 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 9:03:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

These practices are routine in science, and speak to the degree to which science adheres to points I made above.
- In theory, maybe. In reality, things are much more hectic & complicated than that.
Perhaps, but it's so vague I can't tell whether you're pointing out something pertinent, insightful and generally applicable, or speaking beyond your expertise.

Example, please?

Such diligence is entirely rational in science, which seeks to detect, expose and correct error promptly, diligently and independently in the service of more precise, accurate, accountable truth.
- This relates to rationality, not to Science.
Actually, you jumped in on an exchange about science, and switched topics to rationality -- which you have yet to define, or demonstrate as relevant.

Our topic remains science and religion, until you define rationality and demonstrate it more generally applicable.

Now, using the above, can you identify for us a religion that does the same?
- Islam.
Should I be shocked to hear you say that?

Substantiation?

Also, which other religions please, since you generalised to religion, and not specifically to Islam?

- Untrue. In fact, the opposite is more likely. Science wishes to have the intellectual authority of religion, for its lasting effect.
Actually, science acknowledges the possibility of ignorance and error. Hence it seeks only precision, accuracy, applicability and reliability, which is why it is more accountable to independent thought, more diligent in seeking holes and errors, quicker to admit mistakes, and discards mistakes more promptly, accountably and finally than any theology in human history.

But you've made a marvelous claim about Islam, Yassine, so it's time to stump up. As a reminder, since you have claimed to satisfy them all with one faith, you need to substantiate all of:

1) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the validation of divine revelations and miracles, and a list of faiths that have submitted their claims to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn claims for failing to meet best practice standards for validity; (Outstanding)

2) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the authentication of scriptural documents, and a list of faiths that have submitted their scriptures to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn texts from canon that fail to meet a minimum standard of authenticity; (Outstanding)

3) A citation to minimum international interfaith best practice for verification of prophecy, and a faith that has ensured all its prophecies can be falsifiable in reasonable time, and that has removed from canon all scriptures with a falsified prophecy; (Outstanding)

4) A list of faiths that have promptly withdrawn from canon any scripture whose claims have been scientifically falsified; and finally, (Outstanding: citation of relevant scientific publication, citation of religious canon, and date of the latter's official withdrawal from canon.)

5) A list of faiths that have withdrawn from canon any scripture contradicted by a better-authenticated scripture from another faith. (Citation please, including citation of Muslim canon, citation of canonical scripture from another faith, date of authentication of the latter, and date of official withdrawal of the former.)

We both know you're not going to do this, Yassine, so why don't you do as expected, and either cut to a vague and unsubstantiated claim where you shift the burden of disproof to me, or invoke some excuse where you blame your lack of response on some outstanding matter that I must substantiate first?
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 11:51:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Much of science is a religion. Can they prove the big bang as a certainty? No. But Atheists accept it as fact. The same with Evolution and Abiogenesis. None can be proven but much "faith" has been put into these theories and concepts. No Atheist can explain where it all came from originally or if it is all infinite, they can't explain the concept of everything having a parent infinitely with no first anything, just an eternity in history of things begetting things, which is a logical fallacy.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:51:08 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Much of science is a religion. Can they prove the big bang as a certainty? No. But Atheists accept it as fact. The same with Evolution and Abiogenesis. None can be proven but much "faith" has been put into these theories and concepts.
And as you say faith and religion is stoopid, everybody knows that.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 1:10:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I am reminded of a quotation from Mark Twain which goes something like:

"There is something fascinating about science because one gets such a great harvest of conjecture from such a small amount of fact."

As the French would say "Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose".
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 1:10:47 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
I am reminded of a quotation from Mark Twain which goes something like:

"There is something fascinating about science because one gets such a great harvest of conjecture from such a small amount of fact."

As the French would say "Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose".
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

People who denigrate science shouldn't be allowed to use it.

So throw away your computer and electronics and go live in the woods and bang some sticks together.

No doctors or medicine either.

Good luck.
missmedic
Posts: 385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:33:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths.

dictionary.reference.com;
Science
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Religion;
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Does the lack of understanding science creed a person to say god did it.
Acquiring knowledge takes a bit of work, faith based belief does not take any.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.
A person needs to understand the meaning of the term "provisional conclusions".
In science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted. Religious belief is based in faith, not facts, provisional or otherwise.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:27:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:27:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Perhaps, but it's so vague I can't tell whether you're pointing out something pertinent, insightful and generally applicable, or speaking beyond your expertise.

- Meh...

Example, please?

- It's like saying, Democracy is the rule of the people. Well, ideally, maybe. But, in reality it involves the full spectrum of human behaviour, from inspiring to disgraceful.

Actually, you jumped in on an exchange about science, and switched topics to rationality -- which you have yet to define, or demonstrate as relevant.

- The relevant aspect of Science in this discussion is the fact that it's considered a rational activity. Everything you said relates to how Science appeals to rationality, hence my statement.

Our topic remains science and religion, until you define rationality and demonstrate it more generally applicable.

- The topic relates to the rational aspect of Science & Religion. This much is pretty obvious.

Should I be shocked to hear you say that?

- I don't really care either way.

Substantiation?

- I'll be more inclined to give ample substantiation if you happen to substantiate your own claims first. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my energy for naught. Substantiate your claims, & I'll do the same.

Also, which other religions please, since you generalised to religion, and not specifically to Islam?

- Religion, in that sense, relates to its design, not to particular faiths. In the sense you seek, your statements about Science are just as generalised. Much of the Knowledge that seeks to describe nature turned out of be irrational. Modern Science, within that huge amount of scientific knowledge, tends towards the more rational end of the spectrum.

- So, as far as Islam is concerned, other divine religions (Christianity, judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism...) are just inaccurate & distorted versions of Islam. The same way other scientific knowledges are inaccurate representations of Science.

Actually, science acknowledges the possibility of ignorance and error.

- KNOWLEDGE does that, not Science!!!!! Stop talking about Science like it's something special as opposed to other things. It's not. What you're saying is analogous to saying, apples are the only nutritious things. No, food is nutritious, not just apples.

Hence it seeks only precision, accuracy, applicability and reliability, which is why it is more accountable to independent thought, more diligent in seeking holes and errors, quicker to admit mistakes,

- Blahblahblah... Every rational activity demands that. What does Science have to do with it?!

and discards mistakes more promptly, accountably and finally than any theology in human history.

- Not necessarily. This actually makes very little sense in fact, for mistakes are, in most cases, very relative & rest on perception.

But you've made a marvelous claim about Islam, Yassine, so it's time to stump up.

- You have made equally marvelous claims. As I always say, anyone can make up claims, the feat is in supporting those claims. So, how about you start by supporting your claims first. I am fully capable of supporting mine.

As a reminder, since you have claimed to satisfy them all with one faith, you need to substantiate all of:

1) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the validation of divine revelations and miracles,

- No such thing exists. There is, however, a system of authority within the Islamic Tradition that does just that.

and a list of faiths that have submitted their claims to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn claims for failing to meet best practice standards for validity; (Outstanding)

- I don't know or believe in other religions to defend them. Ask other faiths to tell you about their stuff. My only concern is Islam.

2) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the authentication of scriptural documents,
3) A citation to minimum international interfaith best practice for verification of prophecy, and a faith that has ensured all its prophecies can be falsifiable in reasonable time, and that has removed from canon all scriptures with a falsified prophecy;

- Again, there has always been a system of authority within the Islamic Tradition that does just that.

4) A list of faiths that have promptly withdrawn from canon any scripture whose claims have been scientifically falsified

- Islam. Though, at this point, no authenticated scripture has been scientifically falsified.

citation of relevant scientific publication, citation of religious canon, and date of the latter's official withdrawal from canon

- This has been going on since the very first century of Islam.

... including citation of Muslim canon, citation of canonical scripture from another faith, date of authentication of the latter, and date of official withdrawal of the former.

- No such thing. Islamic scriptures are the only 100% authentic scriptures. That's one of the most basic claims of Islam, i.e. past scriptures have been perverted.

We both know you're not going to do this

- You're not interested in what I have to say. You're interested only in generalising your ignorance of religion, so you can say Science this, Science that... If you were genuinely interested in Religion, you'd go about it like this: I don't know, teach me, so then I might be able to judge.

so why don't you do as expected, and either cut to a vague and unsubstantiated claim where you shift the burden of disproof to me, or invoke some excuse where you blame your lack of response on some outstanding matter that I must substantiate first?

- You can't expect other people to substantiate their claims, if you yourself don't. That's both extremely hypocritical & manifestly incoherent in thought.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 6:19:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:51:08 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Much of science is a religion. Can they prove the big bang as a certainty? No. But Atheists accept it as fact. The same with Evolution and Abiogenesis. None can be proven but much "faith" has been put into these theories and concepts. No Atheist can explain where it all came from originally or if it is all infinite, they can't explain the concept of everything having a parent infinitely with no first anything, just an eternity in history of things begetting things, which is a logical fallacy.

Scientific conclusions are not infallible or immutable. (That alone should tell you science is not a religion) Anyone who claims they are, or should be, doesn't understand scientific methodology. Science does not claim 100% certainty. The conclusions are always subject to the quality of available body of evidence - and the body of evidence is ever growing and becoming more precise. Conclusions following this evidence become more robust and precise.

As far as "where it all came from", that is beyond where the evidence can take us. We don't have enough information to say what started the BB or sparked life with any certainty . It is fair to say no one can explain where it all came from, that is, if they are relying on evidence. Based on the evidence (or lack thereof), any reasonable person will tell you "we don't know". It should also be pointed out, theistic explanations are not built from the evidence - so their claims to certainty, along with their 'explanations', are without merit.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 6:41:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:59:08 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton"s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making the wildest speculations of scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce relativity, which paved the way for the bizarre world of quantum physics. Since Darwin and Einstein, science has come to be viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance for its practitioners to arrive at their answers.

The problem with all of those "truths" is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo."way off base. Newton".hate to say it. Microevolution, which was actually documented, yes"but macroevolution".species turning into other species" ridiculous from its first glimmer.

May you give your specific definition of species?

Even Darwin doubted it could be proved, but he saw no other viable alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.

Galileo"s fixed solar system took a hard shot to the chops in 1950, when a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst named Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He "called his shot," a la Joe Namath and Babe Ruth, when he predicted the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo convinced early mainstream scientists that the Evening Star was a frozen blob. Velikovsky"s "outrageous" prediction was proved true, as were several others he made, yet no success he enjoyed could rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. When the subject of his book,"Worlds in Collision, was announced, scientists ganged up on his publisher to force its cancellation. It was later published by another company and became a bestseller. Yet sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists who remember the black eye he gave them, just as Galileo was reviled by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove Velikovsky was correct.

This is not "forbidden" knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream labors to suppress any information that in any way could seriously challenge one of their baseline beliefs. When faced with such a challenge, they heap as much scorn as possible on it, then studiously ignore it, refusing to discuss it, saying it has "already been put in its proper place." Yet it is precisely these volatile subjects they should be investigating to the hilt. Take Velikovsky"s evidence for impermanence in the solar system, and that planetary catastrophe can occur at any time.

This idea is especially threatening to scientists because they are so adamant that the solar system has remained the way it is today since it gathered itself together out of a primeval cloud of dust and gas. If mainstream scientists had to admit to any degree of error regarding such a fundamental aspect of their knowledge base, it would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about"anything, anything at all, in order to prevent anybody from doubting where they absolutely"must"be correct: the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them"creation.

Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says "God did it all," science insists "Nature did it all." From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let"s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.

Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical "dance of the spheres" that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that. In addition, science still does not fully understand gravity or how it works.

Newton knew that as a binding force in nature, gravity was vanishingly weak:In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he [Newton] wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another,"is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.""After celestial bodies were in place, their great masses did produce gravitational effects on each other, as Newton noted, but to say that gravity was how they came together in the first place".that was nonsense.

Despite Newton knowing gravity could not be nature"s binding force, today scientists inflict on the world the specious notion that infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space aggregated into ever larger pieces. It could never happen. Yet cosmologists have decided to support the absurdity that somehow in the ancient past it could. So, why is this? Why won"t mainstream scientists consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don"t want to give up the early foundations of cosmology laid by Newton and Einstein!

Cosmology should have been revamped decades ago, but that would mean scrapping all that science claims to know now. They can"t do that because only the "outsiders" who support the Electric Universe theory know about the truth of it. (See"www.Thunderbolts.info). Scientists loathe giving credit to outsiders, even those with credentials to equal their own, which many in the Electric Universe crowd possess. However, many do not, and that"s the sticking point. Outsiders lacking credentials can"t be given credit for being right. To do that makes a mockery of their entire system of exclusivity.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:21:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:27:44 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:27:31 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/19/2015 2:52:23 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/19/2015 9:03:17 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
These practices are routine in science, and speak to the degree to which science adheres to points I made above.
- In theory, maybe. In reality, things are much more hectic & complicated than that.
Perhaps, but it's so vague I can't tell whether you're pointing out something pertinent, insightful and generally applicable, or speaking beyond your expertise.
- Meh...
Example, please?
- It's like saying, Democracy is the rule of the people. Well, ideally, maybe. But, in reality it involves the full spectrum of human behaviour, from inspiring to disgraceful.

Unsupprisingly Yassine you have supplied not a specific example but an analogy.

Please could you supply from the history of science a specific example of a field where an accepted scientific result nevertheless falsified by legitimate evidence published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal took more than 10 years to be rejected?

And I'll tell you what: for every one you give me of a 10+ year lag from science, I'll give you three of a 50+ year lag from a religion.

Actually, you jumped in on an exchange about science, and switched topics to rationality -- which you have yet to define, or demonstrate as relevant.

- The relevant aspect of Science in this discussion is the fact that it's considered a rational activity.
You need to demonstrate your case by showing how any faith holds all of the criteria I listed.

Should I be shocked to hear you say that?
- I don't really care either way.
Good, because you are running true to form by making broad, biased generalisations without specific, substantiation.

Substantiation?
- I'll be more inclined to give ample substantiation if you happen to substantiate your own claims first.

And now my powers of prophecy rival those of The Chosen One of Islam. For did I not foretell:
We both know you're not going to do this, Yassine, so why don't you do as expected, and[...] invoke some excuse where you blame your lack of response on some outstanding matter that I must substantiate first?

Also, which other religions please, since you generalised to religion, and not specifically to Islam?

- Religion, in that sense, relates to its design, not to particular faiths. In the sense you seek, your statements about Science are just as generalised.
Vague, unsubstantiated waffle, as expected.

Actually, science acknowledges the possibility of ignorance and error.
- KNOWLEDGE does that, not Science!!!!! Stop talking about Science like it's something special as opposed to other things.
Science has a very specific approach to epistemological rigour. If you'd like to demonstrate that a religion uses an approach as rigourous or better, you could do so by addressing the points I raised, namely, to supply:

1) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the validation of divine revelations and miracles, and a list of faiths that have submitted their claims to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn claims for failing to meet best practice standards for validity;

2) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the authentication of scriptural documents, and a list of faiths that have submitted their scriptures to independent review, and subsequently withdrawn texts from canon that fail to meet a minimum standard of authenticity;

3) A citation to minimum international interfaith best practice for verification of prophecy, and a faith that has ensured all its prophecies can be falsifiable in reasonable time, and that has removed from canon all scriptures with a falsified prophecy;

4) A list of faiths that have promptly withdrawn from canon any scripture whose claims have been scientifically falsified; and finally, (Outstanding: citation of relevant scientific publication, citation of religious canon, and date of the latter's official withdrawal from canon.)

5) A list of faiths that have withdrawn from canon any scripture contradicted by a better-authenticated scripture from another faith. (Citation please, including citation of Muslim canon, citation of canonical scripture from another faith, date of authentication of the latter, and date of official withdrawal of the former.)

But you've made a marvelous claim about Islam, Yassine, so it's time to stump up.
- You have made equally marvelous claims.
No, you do not consider them marvellous; you consider them ordinary. For science is a rational activity, and did you not tell me that any rational activity holds the five properties I listed?

So you accept them for science. Now demonstrate each and every one of them for a particular faith.

1) A citation to international, interfaith best practice in the validation of divine revelations and miracles,
- No such thing exists.
Correct. But the important question is: why not? If revelations and miracles are objectively true then they can be validated no matter who has experienced them, and who performs the validation. So why don't religions have an independent, interfaith best practice approach to validation and verification of revelations and miracles?

There is, however, a system of authority within the Islamic Tradition that does just that.
Which is neither independent nor interfaith, and so doesn't qualify.

Islam therefore fails the first criterion, so it is not as rigorous as science. You know perfectly well it fails four more too.

4) A list of faiths that have promptly withdrawn from canon any scripture whose claims have been scientifically falsified
- Islam. Though, at this point, no authenticated scripture has been scientifically falsified.
If Islam has not yet done so, then it is not a legitimate example. Pick another faith.

We both know you're not going to do this
- You're not interested in what I have to say.
That's the first thing you've posted that has advanced this discussion.

You are dead right, Yassine. I am categorically not interested in you reframing the discussion to suit your purposes, and shrugging off your burden of evidence in order to proselytise.

You entered this discussion with a rebuttal, the substantiation of which requires you to demonstrate an understanding of science that you evidently lack, and some examples from the history of faith that you cannot supply.

So essentially you were rebutting to seek attention while you proselytised, and yes, I have no interested in unaccountable self-flattery.

So either meet the burden of refutation you incurred by interjecting, and address my requests for evidence, or else kindly go and exercise your conceit and disrespect on someone who hasn't seen your tediously evasive, antisocial habits before.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:33:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:27:44 AM, Yassine wrote:
- No such thing. Islamic scriptures are the only 100% authentic scriptures.
As in 100% came from an "angel" in a cave.
hahahahaha
Now that is the first islamic joke I've laughed at.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:05:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 7:33:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:27:44 AM, Yassine wrote:
- No such thing. Islamic scriptures are the only 100% authentic scriptures.
As in 100% came from an "angel" in a cave.
Yes, the same angel who also appears in Judaic and Christian tradition, occasionally committing genocide, ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of innocents, and occasionally ferrying messages (perhaps given an easier job due to stress.)

So are all those angelic visitations valid? By what criterion? Because Gabriel is has been invoked by multiple interrelated faiths? Would that criterion pass an independent, interfaith panel on the validation and verification of revelations and miracles?

It certainly wouldn't pass a panel of scientists.