Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Greggers

Perhaps if you reread the OP several times, you'd have a clearer understanding of what was being asserted.

I don't know of anyone who is hostile to the least degree toward

honorable, true, accurate, fittingly applied, truly reported, fitting research designs, etc. etc. etc. and/or their true findings fittingly bounded.

The disdain, etc. is virtually totally about the corruption in scientific circles; the "experiments" funded by corporations that want and get a given "scientific fact" that isn't really a fact, at all.

--The great leaps of illogic from meager and poorly done research toward generalized all inclusive balderdash supposed to decide once and for all--all the super-ordinate and eternal questions & issues of the day . . .

--the out-right lies dressed in peer-reviewed robes of 'super-scientific-righteousness.'

--the flawed "scientific" rationalizations for depopulating the world down to 500 million

etc. etc. etc.

AND PARTICULARLY the RELIGIOUS FERVOR that such hideous things done in the name of science is far too often clothed in and motivated by.

My error was not in deciphering the meaning of the original post, but in deciphering what motivated it, for which I have since made correction.

Why you would suggest I should re-read it several times, I do not know.

originally posted by: cooperton
Dinosaurs aren't usually carbon-dated because they're assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old, but when they are, the dates received are between 4,000-40,000 years old: Source. Of course, this is some of the information that scientific priesthood refuse to acknowledge, so I understand why its so slow to dilute into public knowledge.

And here we have a Young Earth Creationist not only completely misunderstanding what dating methods are used to deduce the age of fossils but also decrying science is a religion. The irony is outstanding.

News just in: scientifically illiterate creationist makes ham-fisted attack on scientific methods in a thread that tries to drag science down to anti-intellectualist levels of understanding of the world.

Kind of an apt summary of this entire thread, really.

Anyone who can't see the difference between science and religion is a moron who needs religion.

originally posted by: GetHyped

And here we have a Young Earth Creationist not only completely misunderstanding what dating methods are used to deduce the age of fossils but also decrying science is a religion. The irony is outstanding.

Instead of ignorantly claiming that others have misunderstandings, perhaps you can say what is incorrect? Or maybe explain how Soft tissue is consistently being found in dinosaur remains. But you won't, you will just dismiss it because it defies your religious dogma - any evidence that does is immediately dismissed, and THAT is the problem with scientism.

(HINT: Soft tissue cannot last for millions of years)

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Anyone who can't see the difference between science and religion is a moron who needs religion.

Anyone who can't see the requirement of faith in scientific theory will go back and put their head in the sand after reading this.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

And here we have a Young Earth Creationist not only completely misunderstanding what dating methods are used to deduce the age of fossils but also decrying science is a religion. The irony is outstanding.

Instead of ignorantly claiming that others have misunderstandings, perhaps you can say what is incorrect? Or maybe explain how Soft tissue is consistently being found in dinosaur remains. But you won't, you will just dismiss it because it defies your religious dogma - any evidence that does is immediately dismissed, and THAT is the problem with scientism.

(HINT: Soft tissue cannot last for millions of years)

Or perhaps I was correct initially...

a reply to: cooperton

Get your facts right. Even your own source contradicts your claim:

Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.

Even the scientist who made the discovery is sick of creationists misrepresenting her work:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

www.smithsonianmag.com...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Get your facts right. Even your own source contradicts your claim:

Even the scientist who made the discovery is sick of creationists misrepresenting her work:

So you see the blatant back-tracking that the science elite do in order to explain obvious contradicting evidence? It is disgusting but the acolytes eat it up without question.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Get your facts right. Even your own source contradicts your claim:

Even the scientist who made the discovery is sick of creationists misrepresenting her work:

So you see the blatant back-tracking that the science elite do in order to explain obvious contradicting evidence? It is disgusting but the acolytes eat it up without question.

No, I see a young earth creationist yet again misunderstanding science in an order to attempt to reconcile it with their fundamentalist interpretation of personal religious texts.

Nothing new, really.

originally posted by: GetHyped

No, I see a young earth creationist yet again misunderstanding science in an order to attempt to reconcile it with their fundamentalist interpretation of personal religious texts.

Nothing new, really.

Soft tissue does not preserve for millions of years - Fact. Soft tissue was found in dinosaur remains - Fact.

Therefore, dinosaur remains are not millions of years old. What is your counter evidence besides your typical obsolete theoretical dogma?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

No, I see a young earth creationist yet again misunderstanding science in an order to attempt to reconcile it with their fundamentalist interpretation of personal religious texts.

Nothing new, really.

Soft tissue does not preserve for millions of years - Fact.

Except they've literally found just that.

But perhaps you would like to share your criticisms on the dating methods they used? What were they and why are they wrong?

originally posted by: GetHyped

Except they've literally found just that.

No, they assume that because that's the only explanation that allows for their dogma not to be shattered - they assume it despite contradictory empirical evidence, which is exactly what the OP is talking about.

But perhaps you would like to share your criticisms on the dating methods they used? What were they and why are they wrong?

The dating techniques agree with a younger age for dinosaurs. C-14 dating shows dinosaur remains are consistently between 4,000-40,000 years old: Source Yet this too is dismissed because it defies dogma.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Get your facts right. Even your own source contradicts your claim:

Even the scientist who made the discovery is sick of creationists misrepresenting her work:

So you see the blatant back-tracking that the science elite do in order to explain obvious contradicting evidence?

God help me...Scientists are not "backtracking"...YOU are...you are the one that declared that soft-tissue could not survive millions of years and that must mean young earth!...right here on this page of the thread!

originally posted by: cooperton

(HINT: Soft tissue cannot last for millions of years)

You literally declared it and when proven wrong declared that "Scientists" were back-tracking!

Scientists discover new stuff all the time...it's their job description...it's not possible if you stuff a bunch of biblical or mythological inventions in the blank space and call it a day.

a reply to: cooperton

Now you're just asserting your opinion with not a shred of evidence to back them up.

I ask again: What were the dating methods they used and why were they wrong?

The dating techniques agree with a younger age for dinosaurs. C-14 dating shows dinosaur remains are consistently between 4,000-40,000 years old: Source Yet this too is dismissed because it defies dogma.

LOL! So you cite a random PDF from non-scientific creationist website? Right, OK mate.

originally posted by: Indigo5


Scientists discover new stuff all the time...it's their job description...it's not possible if you stuff a bunch of biblical or mythological inventions in the blank space and call it a day.

This has nothing to do with anything besides science. Science is confronted with empirical (observable) evidence that blatantly contradicts its core theories and they simply dismiss it because it would mean that the scientific "findings" of their priests are dead wrong. These revolutionary empirical findings are dismissed because the old can't make way for the new, and THAT is what needs to change.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

No, I see a young earth creationist yet again misunderstanding science in an order to attempt to reconcile it with their fundamentalist interpretation of personal religious texts.

Nothing new, really.

Soft tissue does not preserve for millions of years - Fact. Soft tissue was found in dinosaur remains - Fact.

Apparently your scientific method involves inserting the word "Fact" after everything you decide is the same?

Personally I prefer reasoned research and evidence and then reserve a margin of doubt whatever the outcome...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

LOL! So you cite a random PDF from non-scientific creationist website? Right, OK mate.

The PDF is a compilation of all the citations of the many examples of the C-14 dating of dinosaurs. it is an objective compilation that is genuinely seeking the truth, and you dismiss it because it contradicts your dogma.

Don't you see how zealous you all have become from me merely posting contradictory evidence to your beloved dogmatic theories?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Indigo5


Scientists discover new stuff all the time...it's their job description...it's not possible if you stuff a bunch of biblical or mythological inventions in the blank space and call it a day.

Science is confronted with empirical (observable) evidence that blatantly contradicts its core theories and they simply dismiss it because it would mean that the scientific "findings" of their priests are dead wrong. These revolutionary empirical findings are dismissed because the old can't make way for the new, and THAT is what needs to change.

Nothing personal, but this is gobbly-gook nonsense with any specifics...It's one of those things that is so general and unsupported it is meaningless. If you have some science that you think is being denied by scientists...please provide it.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Personally I prefer reasoned research and evidence and then reserve a margin of doubt whatever the outcome...

Then why do you blindly dismiss empirical evidence that contradicts the contemporary mainstream theories?

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

What you said here underlies the WHOLE POINT of this thread... NO you are WRONG...Neither Evolution being true, global warming being caused by man a reality nor the earth as related to the past being measured by the revolution of the earth around the sun merely thousands of times is necessarily true or false...It HASN'T been meted out to be the case, it HASN'T been proven...

It is the fundamental PROBLEMS with the scientific establishment that has put that erroneous thought out there to so many like your self...

The underlying structure is all fugged up, and that's because of how these theories were developed, modified and bolstered.

It actually started with geology, and then archeology etc...

It was believed the earth was thousands of years old, then when theories were developed and tests designed to extrapolate the truth, then it was a million years old, then when those proved to be wrong, it was millions of years old, then tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions...This is ALL historically documented... Look at scholastic books from history and scientific papers of the past and you will see it ALL...

You just don't seem to get that these tweaks over time are much more similar to a frog not jumping out of a pot if the water is cool and gradually heated up to a boil than it is to fixing small errors over time.

Going from a couple of hundred thousands years being necessary to BILLIONS of years being necessary is not a small correction, it is a HUGE correction, but because it was done gradually, the thought that the underlying premise that started it all, (erosion characteristics measured over a VERY short time and extrapolated GREATLY), is wrong.

That's the problem with interdisciplinary theorem. They become interconnected to the point that tweaks have to be all encompassing, modifications and introductions of new theories must be situated to bolster the other, even if later shown to be erroneous.

The tweaks become distortions, the data showing error, discarded outliers, and the decries of ABSOLUTE TRUTH, religious dogma that CANNOT be CHALLENGED...

We end up with religion, instead of knowledge... There you go, call them the gnostic scientists. They know because they know, do not question them because you are not among the initiated...

Jaden

p.s. and btw, I am NOT a young earth creationist...but I don't dismiss their beliefs out of hand and I DO consider how their thoughts might be possible...

originally posted by: Indigo5
If you have some science that you think is being denied by scientists...please provide it.

1) soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains.
2) carbon-dating dinosaur remains

It'd be a marvel if any of the mainstream scientismists actually earnestly looked into this and formed a non-bias opinion based on the empirical findings.