Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are some who hang on to the words of Hawking and Dawkins like a cult. That you pretend this doesn't happen means you are sadly ignorant of a great deal.
There are some who hang on to the words of Hawking and Dawkins like a cult. That you pretend this doesn't happen means you are sadly ignorant of a great deal.
Then such "some" people are showing their ignorance of science too. Because unlike many religions popular on this very forum, science is not a personality cult. Words are not more interesting or credible because they come from one source over another. In science we evaluate the words themselves, not the person who is saying them.
Lynn Margulis is a first example I usually give for this. She worked VERY hard to get one of her theories accepted. Decades in fact. And eventually it has all but been universally accepted and much praise lauded upon her. Does that mean the NEXT thing to come out of her mouth should be accepted? No. Hell no. She is back to square one in the eyes of science! And actually some of the stuff she came out with subsequently was truly tosh.
Isaac Newton is the best second example. Clearly a top contender for being the greatest mind our species has ever produced. The kind of man who invented a new branch of calculus just to fulfill a bet. So is everything he said credible and interesting? Hell no, he subscribed to some egregious nonsense in the realms of things like alchemy, medicine and deism.
So I, and any actual practicing or knowledgeable scientists I know of, do not hang on the words of anyone. They evaluate the words, regardless of the past glories or lack of them of the source, and allow them to stand on their own merits. A top name like Hawking or Dawkins or Newton or Einstein does not get a free ride from peer review and scientific evaluation. While some of the more interesting leaps forward can come from a college student with NO history working on a thesis.
At best their name merely buys them the ability to jump the queue for such consideration. But the consideration should remain as stringent regardless of who they are. Sometimes MORE stringent in fact as they are human, and past successes can give rise to over confidence, hubris... and hence error. Newton again being a great example of this.
Then such "some" people are showing their ignorance of science too. Because unlike many religions popular on this very forum, science is not a personality cult. Words are not more interesting or credible because they come from one source over another. In science we evaluate the words themselves, not the person who is saying them.
Lynn Margulis is a first example I usually give for this. She worked VERY hard to get one of her theories accepted. Decades in fact. And eventually it has all but been universally accepted and much praise lauded upon her. Does that mean the NEXT thing to come out of her mouth should be accepted? No. Hell no. She is back to square one in the eyes of science! And actually some of the stuff she came out with subsequently was truly tosh.
But this is precisely what I'm trying to tell you. You have some mistaken notion that religion is somehow responsible for stifling scientific advances. In this century at least, religion hasn't been in position to veto anything. So what is responsible for holding back science in this day and age?
Other science! That's right! We have textbooks that tell us "we now know" that this is the case. But hold up, before this biology textbook "now knew" that spontaneous generation wasn't the case, scientists of the time "knew" that insects came about out of thin air whenever something rotted. That wounds and illness were best cured by bleeding. This had nothing to do with religion, the priests of the time were busy trying to determine how many devils danced on the end of a pin.
Isaac Newton is the best second example. Clearly a top contender for being the greatest mind our species has ever produced. The kind of man who invented a new branch of calculus just to fulfill a bet. So is everything he said credible and interesting? Hell no, he subscribed to some egregious nonsense in the realms of things like alchemy, medicine and deism.
So I, and any actual practicing or knowledgeable scientists I know of, do not hang on the words of anyone. They evaluate the words, regardless of the past glories or lack of them of the source, and allow them to stand on their own merits. A top name like Hawking or Dawkins or Newton or Einstein does not get a free ride from peer review and scientific evaluation. While some of the more interesting leaps forward can come from a college student with NO history working on a thesis.
Exactly. Only they graduate from college, and go into the world of accreditation, and realize that nothing they study will matter because they have to convince a bunch of people hostile to their ideas to believe them.
Thus in the words of Representative John B. Conlan from Arizona: " ( the system can turn into) an 'Old Boy's System' where program managers rely on trusted friends in the academic community to review their proposals. These friends recommend their friends as reviewers....It is an incestuous buddy system that frequently stifles new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, while carving up the multimillion dollar Federal research and education pie in a monopoly game of grantsmanship..." (from Testimonial on July 22, 1975, as a member of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, First Session. Quoted from "National Science Foundation Peer Review, Special Oversight Hearings., Publication No. 32, p. 5; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.).
Consequently, support for research that might lead to major new scientific discoveries is virtually forbidden nowadays, and science is in serious danger of stagnating.
What I am trying to say is not that all scientists hang onto these former leaders. But that peer reviewers frequently do, preventing the way forward. Science needs more innovation, and more free-thinkers. And it's not getting that because it's screening out the "riff-raff".
At best their name merely buys them the ability to jump the queue for such consideration. But the consideration should remain as stringent regardless of who they are. Sometimes MORE stringent in fact as they are human, and past successes can give rise to over confidence, hubris... and hence error. Newton again being a great example of this.
Ultimately, science is blaming religion for something it has little to do with. And that's what's ticking me off.
And a lot of the greedy sick people trying to stay in power are the scientists as well. They don't want to loose tenure. They don't want to be castigated for speaking out on their views that evolution is a farce for fear it will damage their career or their department may lose funding for research. For some of them, greed is more important than helping people see the truth.
Evolution is not a farce so they don't want to speak out against it.
None of the authors of the bible were there 'in the beginning' so they wouldn't have had a clue as to what went down or what was said by 'God'.
Why is religion at odds with evolution? It really has no bearing on spirituality and God. The belief in creation and the insistence on it makes God seem fictitious.
Such a powerful being and creator who can't keep world peace? A god who had the power to create a global flood to eradicate wicked man which actually failed to make a difference but didn't have the power to fix the problem in his lab? He didn't have the power to correct his mistakes in creating man.
It's called highlighting, copying, and pasting. Learn to use it. I'm perfectly okay with using other people's quotes, and responding line by line. Like this.
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Then such "some" people are showing their ignorance of science too. Because unlike many religions popular on this very forum, science is not a personality cult. Words are not more interesting or credible because they come from one source over another. In science we evaluate the words themselves, not the person who is saying them.
Lynn Margulis is a first example I usually give for this. She worked VERY hard to get one of her theories accepted. Decades in fact. And eventually it has all but been universally accepted and much praise lauded upon her. Does that mean the NEXT thing to come out of her mouth should be accepted? No. Hell no. She is back to square one in the eyes of science! And actually some of the stuff she came out with subsequently was truly tosh.
But this is precisely what I'm trying to tell you. You have some mistaken notion that religion is somehow responsible for stifling scientific advances. In this century at least, religion hasn't been in position to veto anything. So what is responsible for holding back science in this day and age?
Other science! That's right! We have textbooks that tell us "we now know" that this is the case. But hold up, before this biology textbook "now knew" that spontaneous generation wasn't the case, scientists of the time "knew" that insects came about out of thin air whenever something rotted. That wounds and illness were best cured by bleeding. This had nothing to do with religion, the priests of the time were busy trying to determine how many devils danced on the end of a pin.
Isaac Newton is the best second example. Clearly a top contender for being the greatest mind our species has ever produced. The kind of man who invented a new branch of calculus just to fulfill a bet. So is everything he said credible and interesting? Hell no, he subscribed to some egregious nonsense in the realms of things like alchemy, medicine and deism.
So I, and any actual practicing or knowledgeable scientists I know of, do not hang on the words of anyone. They evaluate the words, regardless of the past glories or lack of them of the source, and allow them to stand on their own merits. A top name like Hawking or Dawkins or Newton or Einstein does not get a free ride from peer review and scientific evaluation. While some of the more interesting leaps forward can come from a college student with NO history working on a thesis.
Exactly. Only they graduate from college, and go into the world of accreditation, and realize that nothing they study will matter because they have to convince a bunch of people hostile to their ideas to believe them.
Quote:
Thus in the words of Representative John B. Conlan from Arizona: " ( the system can turn into) an 'Old Boy's System' where program managers rely on trusted friends in the academic community to review their proposals. These friends recommend their friends as reviewers....It is an incestuous buddy system that frequently stifles new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, while carving up the multimillion dollar Federal research and education pie in a monopoly game of grantsmanship..." (from Testimonial on July 22, 1975, as a member of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, First Session. Quoted from "National Science Foundation Peer Review, Special Oversight Hearings., Publication No. 32, p. 5; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.).
Meanwhile, people who criticize do far worse things, like break quotes up, and force me to read stuff out of context, because I can't see my own quotes.
Quote:
Why is religion at odds with evolution? It really has no bearing on spirituality and God. The belief in creation and the insistence on it makes God seem fictitious.
Such a powerful being and creator who can't keep world peace? A god who had the power to create a global flood to eradicate wicked man which actually failed to make a difference but didn't have the power to fix the problem in his lab? He didn't have the power to correct his mistakes in creating man.
It is only at odds, as a delusion in our mind. Actually, these two are not natural adversaries, and could just as easily work together, or leave each other alone.
It's called highlighting, copying, and pasting. Learn to use it. I'm perfectly okay with using other people's quotes, and responding line by line. Like this.
You could learn to use the quote feature, it is even easier. A lot less steps involved for you. You do the same thing, highlight the text and instead of changing the color, just hit the quote button. It'll be awesome. And who knows, I may even read it. Then when quoting your post, each one of your posts being quoted gets "quoted" and not just the last paragraph. Otherwise it doesn't get carried over into the new post and gets dumped.
Evolution is not a farce so they don't want to speak out against it.
Actually, it is a farce.
Quote:
None of the authors of the bible were there 'in the beginning' so they wouldn't have had a clue as to what went down or what was said by 'God'.
Who said they had to be?
Quote:
Why is religion at odds with evolution? It really has no bearing on spirituality and God. The belief in creation and the insistence on it makes God seem fictitious.
Of course it has a bearing on spirituality and God. The belief in evolution and insistence on it makes God seem fictitious.
Quote:
Such a powerful being and creator who can't keep world peace? A god who had the power to create a global flood to eradicate wicked man which actually failed to make a difference but didn't have the power to fix the problem in his lab? He didn't have the power to correct his mistakes in creating man.
Who said He is supposed to keep world peace during the eon in which we live which is called "the current wicked eon (Gal.1:4)? In the next eon called the millennium, Christ will keep world peace and in the eon after that God and Christ will keep world peace on the new earth. In each eon God is teaching humanity concerning good and evil.
Who said He made mistakes in creating man?
Who said He didn't have the power to correct the problem in His lab? He did correct the problem. It's called the historic world-wide flood. Had God done nothing you'd be the first to proclaim, "If God exists why doesn't He do anything about this evil in the world" in Noah's day. You see, you can't win no matter what you do.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Actually, it is a farce.
[quote=PanTerra;41735959]Show me. From what I have seen, and I have seen a lot, I have no reason to conclude otherwise. You would have to make me unsee all that I have seen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bingo! 