The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 18, 2017, 02:18:25 PM

Title: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 18, 2017, 02:18:25 PM
All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.

We all know religion works the main monotheistic religions are based on a race of people from the middle east and now after thousands of years the world helped some of them set a nation up in their homeland.

When a Vicar/Priest says That a man called Noah built a boat and all the animals where able to fit on it with Noah and his family also requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify what has been written.

When someone doesn't believe in a popular hypothesis they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

When someone doesn't believe in a religion they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

Is Science the new religion ?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Babushka on May 18, 2017, 02:24:33 PM
Generally, religions are either monotheistic or polytheistic. The simple fact is, with science, there is no singular person or group of people to "believe" in. Besides, if it truly became a religion, schools couldn't teach science anymore because it classifies as a "religion". If we start thinking about it from that perspective, it could throw off everybody's view of the world.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 18, 2017, 02:51:09 PM
All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.

We all know religion works the main monotheistic religions are based on a race of people from the middle east and now after thousands of years the world helped some of them set a nation up in their homeland.

When a Vicar/Priest says That a man called Noah built a boat and all the animals where able to fit on it with Noah and his family also requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify what has been written.

When someone doesn't believe in a popular hypothesis they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

When someone doesn't believe in a religion they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

Is Science the new religion ?

To answer you final question the answer is of course no. Why?
Religion relies on faith and faith alone.
Science on the other hand relies on proof. Science also moves on as new discoveries are made.
The computer you typed your post on bears witness to many scientific principles without the understanding of, your computer would never have been designed let alone manufactured.
The whole subject of transistor theory for example are you going to accept it or reject it? do you have means by which you can prove or disprove it?
How about electrical generation theory....do you believe it or do you reject it?
Or at a more basic level do you believe in electrons? As you have never or will ever seen one! Is it faith or knowledge you require to accept that they exist?

As for the collision of black holes, these have been detected through gravitational waves and not by faith. When I plug something into the mains and flick the switch my device powers up through the application of science.....no faith required.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: JackSchitt on May 18, 2017, 04:10:19 PM
In my point of view science is far from religion, first if a Scientist makes a claim like that (about the black holes) they will also produce a paper with sufficient evidence to convince the rest of the scientific community as it would a massive loss of face to look like a tit to some of the smartest minds currently alive.

And secondly we don't just believe a random person who states they have seen the black holes, we listen to people that have a history with science that we know and can visually certify so it's not a massive leap of faith to follow their wake as they research further things.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 18, 2017, 04:20:58 PM
All we know is what we are shown.

It doesn't have to be that way. If you don't blow off your schoolwork, you, too, can learn how to do experiments to verify much of what is claimed.

Quote
I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.

"Most" people, yes. "All" people, no. There are lots of assertions you can test yourself (or could if you took science classes in school and didn't sleep through them) that have more immediate impact on your life, however.

Quote
We all know religion works the main monotheistic religions are based on a race of people from the middle east and now after thousands of years the world helped some of them set a nation up in their homeland.

When a Vicar/Priest says That a man called Noah built a boat and all the animals where able to fit on it with Noah and his family also requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify what has been written.

There is no way for any people to verify that story.

Quote
When someone doesn't believe in a popular hypothesis they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

This is often the case. If someone's alternative hypothesis works better as more is learned, however, it becomes the new popular hypothesis, and the one who proposed it sometimes wins a Nobel Prize. If the alternative hypothesis is shown to be wrong as more is learned, it usually fades into obscurity; sometimes someone like sandokhan will stumble across it and natter endlessly about it.

Quote
When someone doesn't believe in a religion they are looked at by the believers in a negative way.

It gets much worse than that. Sometimes they're shunned, or punished, tortured, or even killed.

Quote
Is Science the new religion ?

No. They work in fundamentally different ways.

Science on the other hand relies on proof.

Not exactly. Although hypotheses that have so much evidence supporting them are sometimes called 'proven', they aren't really. It's not possible to prove things in science, only collect data and evidence that supports an hypothesis or shows it's wrong.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on May 18, 2017, 10:01:25 PM
Science has not nor ever will it become a religion. It may seem like some scientists and other individuals do make a religion out of it. But when they do this it is no longer science.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: napoleon on May 19, 2017, 12:01:37 AM
not the same...
Science and religion should be extensions of each other though.
science starts with a question which is unanswered. then you start to think out a possible answer..which can be seen as a belief...you belief that "the answer could be xxxxxx because, xxxxxxx" in other words, your belief tells you where which way to look for answers. Then you start to investigate. as long as you are investigating, and you didn't find any solid solution yet, you are driven by conclusions of the interim results and other beliefs drawn from those conclusions....but the moment you find your evidence, you no longer have to believe anymore...because, you can prove your answer.

That is in my opinion how religion and science should interact with each other...the moment you can prove your religion wrong...your religion has no use anymore...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 12:55:01 AM
I don't think what I said has been understood  :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: napoleon on May 19, 2017, 01:21:39 AM
I don't think what I said has been understood  :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?
you incapable of understanding the evidence doesn't change anything about the facts.
If you cannot understand the evidence, or you do not have the needed tool to verify it, then you cannot do anything about it, but at least you have an answer which you can rely on.
as for religion, no one has a solid answer...no one claims he/she can prove it...everyone is looking for it...only beliefs and assumptions and possible directions...that is the difference...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 19, 2017, 01:52:56 AM
Religion is about 4000 years old & science is only couple of hundreds of years old!

When religion first came, it took time for people to prove it correct and that of a divine origin - God even needed to send more than one messenger to establish that faith among the different nations.

After few thousands of years, believers needed not to prove the existence of God > they do that based on faith, because many nations before them have gone through that process of proving.

In few thousands of years, people need not to prove the current theories we based our science upon - it's already been proven, practically used and manifested in our development as humans.
In few thousands of years science books would be like holy books and in science we should trust!

A new religious movement which had started in the fifties of the twentieth Century called the "Church of Scientology" - a religion that combines science with spiritual beliefs and offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being.

Science could become a very powerful religion that would be followed worldwide, if it would rely more on both the physical and the spiritual nature of things!
Science had completely denied the spiritual part and removed it from the minds of the scientists > to the point they even denied the existence of an intelligent creator and a magnificent scientist.

I always thought that it's the scientists that should be first to believe in the existence of God, because they were first to prove there is higher intelligence behind how things are made/ created and that everything that exists is directly related to math, physics and chemistry (created with knowledge).

I truly believe that science and religion should not contradict each other, one should not eliminate the role of the other and both should go along in harmony.
I truly believe the only way to advance as intelligent human beings is to follow both paths - the spiritual based of faith and the physical based on proven scientific theories.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 19, 2017, 02:05:09 AM
I don't think what I said has been understood  :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?
So you think science is a religion because you, personally, cannot verify every finding.
Be reasonable! How would it ever have been possible for any one person to verify personally every finding in science.

But, what can be done is to seek independent evidence for any new "discovery". That is the way science works.
One group announces something like, say, "cold fusion" (an actual case).
But other scientists are rather skeptical of that being possible, so the finding is not widely accepted unril it is replicated a few times by other groups (and it could not be replicated.).

Not being a scientist, but interested in these things,
when new discoveries come up that I am doubtful of, I think "Isn't that intesesting!", but remain sceptical until the finding is verified.

So, when it comes to "How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away?"
Well, personally, neither you nor I can, but does it matter? It won't affect your life if you believe it or reminder sceptical.

When it comes to findings that might affect you personally, such as a new medical treatment, all you can do is think "That's nice, it might treat my problem, but I'll wait till it is confirmed by others".

So, while I do not agree that science is a religion, there will always be the problem that we, personally, cannot verify everything and there are many questionable "findings".

There are many "pseudo-scientific" reports of things like "free-energy machines" or "magical medical treatments".
To guard against this sort of thing some grounding in the basics of science is very important for everyone.
At least enough else to hammer home the point that you never get something for nothing (so no free energy) and you can't even break even (so no perpetual motion machines).  :D It's also good financial advice.  :D

Sorry, I did not mean to ramble on again!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: napoleon on May 19, 2017, 02:11:24 AM
totally agree on that Hannibaal.
though, science and religion are equally old since the first self consious human being walked on the surface of the Earth. Humans have always been occupied by explaining their surroundings, explolations and learnings from earlier mistakes or learning from each other or from observations.
at first religion and science were very close to each other but even then those two were extensions of each other...
and just like Hannibaal said...it should be extentions of each other now too.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: napoleon on May 19, 2017, 02:18:38 AM
I don't think what I said has been understood  :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?
So you think science is a religion because you, personally, cannot verify every finding.
Be reasonable! How would it ever have been possible for any one person to verify personally every finding in science.

But, what can be done is to seek independent evidence for any new "discovery". That is the way science works.
One group announces something like, say, "cold fusion" (an actual case).
But other scientists are rather skeptical of that being possible, so the finding is not widely accepted unril it is replicated a few times by other groups (and it could not be replicated.).

Not being a scientist, but interested in these things,
when new discoveries come up that I am doubtful of, I think "Isn't that intesesting!", but remain sceptical until the finding is verified.

So, when it comes to "How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away?"
Well, personally, neither you nor I can, but does it matter? It won't affect your life if you believe it or reminder sceptical.

When it comes to findings that might affect you personally, such as a new medical treatment, all you can do is think "That's nice, it might treat my problem, but I'll wait till it is confirmed by others".

So, while I do not agree that science is a religion, there will always be the problem that we, personally, cannot verify everything and there are many questionable "findings".

There are many "pseudo-scientific" reports of things like "free-energy machines" or "magical medical treatments".
To guard against this sort of thing some grounding in the basics of science is very important for everyone.
At least enough else to hammer home the point that you never get something for nothing (so no free energy) and you can't even break even (so no perpetual motion machines).  :D It's also good financial advice.  :D

Sorry, I did not mean to ramble on again!
Do we all know exactly in full detail how a processor works? yet, we all use it if we want to discuss a subject on this forum, and we expect it to do it's job in the way it is designed to.

If we put enough effort in it, maybe we could understand how it works, but we don't need to...we could verify that it works perfectly on a different level.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 19, 2017, 03:48:20 AM
totally agree on that Hannibaal.
though, science and religion are equally old since the first self consious human being walked on the surface of the Earth. Humans have always been occupied by explaining their surroundings, explolations and learnings from earlier mistakes or learning from each other or from observations.
at first religion and science were very close to each other but even then those two were extensions of each other...
and just like Hannibaal said...it should be extentions of each other now too.

Indeed "science" is very old - the pyramids and ancients artifacts are a proof of that - but, I wanted to note the modern science based on modern, past-two centuries theories, that had contributed in the advancement of the present civilized world.

And, indeed science and religion went along quite fine, before and in certain eras > Islamic scholars and scientist are a real proof of that - their teachings and theories were the basis to modern science and their books are still taught in major universities in the world.

If the majority of people do not deny the existence of a spiritual side or aspect of life besides the material/physical part, then why does modern science do?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 05:12:40 AM
Anything that requires a great amount of faith to be believed has to be a religion.

Some people are stupid and gullible so they believe anything.

Alot of science is hard to believe we are told for example:

The earth is a globe

We are shown some CGI Images and then expected to believe in this globe theory.

I'm not really bothered what shape the earth is or if scientist's are lieing or telling the truth it makes no difference to my life.

That said until something can be verified by myself I do not believe it.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: coffeecrisp on May 19, 2017, 07:58:59 AM
All we know is what we are shown.

Science is an open system. Anyone can go to university and study. However, getting a PHD is an entirely different matter and getting a job as well. Nobody is going to give you a job if they think you can’t produce results.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.
We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

How a car works is more in the domain of applied science (engineering).
Producing the petrol is a matter of chemistry.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.

That’s correct, most people can’t verify because getting a degree, getting a job, getting access to equipment is difficult. Only the best people are chosen.

These kinds of things go through a peer review process. In other words, other astronomists will check your results. Then you get to publish your white paper.

As for religion, NOBODY and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY can check the wild claims.
Like Bill Nye the science guy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example:
Jesus can walk on water? Let’s see it. He is a god right? He should be able to do it anytime.

The big question is, why didn’t this god invent cameras, VHS cassettes or anything advanced. Why didn’t he give science lessons? Is it because Jesus is just an ordinary blow joe (he doesn’t know jackshi)? Or maybe this god just doesn’t want to teach people how things work?

I’m just an ordinary guy like you, asking questions.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 19, 2017, 08:37:28 AM
Anything that requires a great amount of faith to be believed has to be a religion.

Some people are stupid and gullible so they believe anything.

Alot of science is hard to believe we are told for example:

The earth is a globe

We are shown some CGI Images and then expected to believe in this globe theory.

I'm not really bothered what shape the earth is or if scientist's are lieing or telling the truth it makes no difference to my life.

That said until something can be verified by myself I do not believe it.

to verify the global earth i invite you to come to Ontario and we take a look at Toronto from across Lake Ontario.
there you can see with your own eyes the effect of the earth curvature.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: wise on May 19, 2017, 09:21:42 AM
Science was religion in all past of the world. But it was accepting the God. But updated fake/Darwinist science made a coap to real science. This is a religion too but denying to the real science. It should be destroyed is an Emergency coded task.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Copper Knickers on May 19, 2017, 10:01:33 AM
If the majority of people do not deny the existence of a spiritual side or aspect of life besides the material/physical part, then why does modern science do?

I don't think science denies the spiritual and metaphysical, rather it has no comment on it. Not being testable, it is outside science's domain.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of scientists with opinions on religion, though..
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 10:02:41 AM
@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla

Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.

Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my  English education as being superior.

@Canadabear
Thank you for the offer but unfortunately I'm really busy this year so will not have time to travel to Canada to witness this curvature you speak of as I'm from England.

Do any of you know where in England I can witness this curvature you speak of.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 19, 2017, 10:03:19 AM
Science was religion in all past of the world. But it was accepting the God. But updated fake/Darwinist science made a coap to real science. This is a religion too but denying to the real science. It should be destroyed is an Emergency coded task.

religion is based on believe, science is based on knowledge.

the science "accepted" god as long as it still fitted the results of the scientific results. But real science showed that there is no evidence for a being as described as a god.

different religions got disproven at different times. but all religions, and their holy books, got disproven.
like a global flood, talking animals, magical events and so on.

But on the other hand, it should be ok to call science a religion, because that the religious people have to accept science because they accept religions.
 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 19, 2017, 10:17:05 AM
@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla

Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.

Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my  English education as being superior.

@Canadabear
Thank you for the offer but unfortunately I'm really busy this year so will not have time to travel to Canada to witness this curvature you speak of as I'm from England.

Do any of you know where in England I can witness this curvature you speak of.

should be possible at Lynton and than look across the Bristol Channel to Swansea.

there you should be able to see that at water level that you can only see the upper levels of the high buildings and if you go to a higher viewpoint you can see also the lower levels of these buildings.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 19, 2017, 10:22:01 AM
If the majority of people do not deny the existence of a spiritual side or aspect of life besides the material/physical part, then why does modern science do?

I don't think science denies the spiritual and metaphysical, rather it has no comment on it. Not being testable, it is outside science's domain.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of scientists with opinions on religion, though..

Maybe the spiritual domain has a science of its own, that conventional science did not even bother to look into , or even invent the instruments and tools to detect and prove its existence!

They often talk about a forbidden knowledge - maybe that's what conventional science have long tried to hide and blur its reality!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 19, 2017, 10:26:10 AM
Science doesn't require faith. There are no "science works in mysterious ways" answers. There is nothing stopping you from verifying anyone else's conclusions. Everything is accessible, demonstrable, and repeatable.

You don't know how relative velocity works? Do it yourself. There is nothing stopping you from creating a testing environment, experimenting, and seeing the results for yourself.

While some experiments (e.g. black hole collisions) are more complex, science doesn't change. Learn calculus, verify everything yourself, learn advanced physics, verify everything yourself, etc. If you come up with a different answer, cool, publish your results.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 19, 2017, 10:29:25 AM
You don't have to "take anyone else's word" for anything. The thing is, you can't take shortcuts. If a conclusion has been reached over hundreds of years of questions, experiments, data, and repetition, you don't get to claim that your conclusion is the correct one because you spent 15 minutes watching a youtube video.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2017, 10:59:44 AM
Anything that requires a great amount of faith to be believed has to be a religion.

Religion relies entirely on faith. Science relies on observation, testing, and measurement.

Quote
Some people are stupid and gullible so they believe anything.

This is true. For instance, there is a Flat Earth Society, and some people appear to actually believe the earth is flat, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quote
Alot of science is hard to believe we are told for example:

The earth is a globe

That one is not difficult to independently confirm. No need to rely "on what we're told".

Quote
We are shown some CGI Images and then expected to believe in this globe theory.

You make a baseless claim, but it's irrelevant anyway. It was easy to tell the earth is spherical long before even the advent of photography, much less spacecraft, digital photography, and computer graphics.

Quote
I'm not really bothered what shape the earth is or if scientist's are lieing or telling the truth it makes no difference to my life.

Cool. Why go on and on about it, then?

Quote
That said until something can be verified by myself I do not believe it.

Well, there you go. Since you can verify that the earth is not flat, that settles that. If you choose to believe otherwise because you refuse to verify it is nothing more than willful ignorance.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 11:38:02 AM
Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet  I will see if this works out for the distances involved.

Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.

@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
 
How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?
As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.


I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 19, 2017, 12:20:32 PM
the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.

citation needed

Notes:
- There are multiple blue marble images, I'm talking about the original.
- CGI != photo editing.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 12:55:12 PM
The blue marble 2002 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_2002.php

the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.

citation needed

Notes:
- There are multiple blue marble images, I'm talking about the original.
- CGI != photo editing.
7
Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet  I will see if this works out for the distances involved.

Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.

@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.
 
How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?
As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.


I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.

The 2002 blue marble is CGI so like I said my claim is not baseless.

It is also relevant because if Nasa have been in space thousands of times why do they need to use CGI ?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 19, 2017, 01:01:50 PM
The blue marble 2002 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_2002.php

Notes:
- There are multiple blue marble images, I'm talking about the original.
- CGI != photo editing.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2017, 01:21:14 PM
Thanks for the info Canada Bear I will go to Lynton and will see if I can witness this curvature you speak of.
I believe the quick formula for curvature is miles squared multiplied by eight then divided by twelve to bring back to feet  I will see if this works out for the distances involved.

Science does require Faith for example Einsteins theory of relativity has never been verified

This is incorrect.

Quote
as NOBODY has travelled at the speed of light but some people believe it because they have faith that Einsteins theory was correct and he was telling the truth and other scientists have done experiments that support Einsteins hypothesis which could be described as convinient as it would be in their financial interest to further exalt one of the science religions gods.

There is no requirement for someone to travel the speed of light to verify GR. It's been confirmed in a variety of ways over the past century.

Quote
@Alpha2 omega the blue marble image is CGI so my claim is hardly baseless.


Even if that statement were true, so what? We've known through a variety of independent means that the earth is spherical long before the blue marble image existed.

Quote
How other than witnessing curvature can the earth be proven a globe ?

If you can see the curvature, what else do you need? Just for the sake of completeness, the positions and apparent motion of the stars, planets, sun, and moon are most easily explained using the spherical model of the earth. No other explanation comes close.

Quote
As from what I've seen so far most of it also works on the geocentric model.

The structure of the solar system and the shape of the earth are different topics.

Quote
I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.[citation needed]

For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.

Do you know how long that would be? Why would an astronaut have his mobile phone with him in space? Do you think phones are the only devices that record video? Do you think astronauts have nothing better to do on the outbound flight?

Quote
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun

The Hubble takes pictures of planets just fine. They have better places to spend money, and you'd just dismiss everything as fake, anyway.

Quote
or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)

The Hubble isn't designed to take pictures of earth so the results would be useless, and its time is too valuable to "mess around" doing stuff that's of no use.

Quote
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.

The easy (and correct) answer is that CGI doesn't have to be used. Just because you want to believe, for whatever reason, that images of the earth from space are faked doesn't mean they are faked.

Unfortunately, it will take a little effort and a modicum of rational thought for you to personally verify that the earth is a large sphere. The effort and brainpower are probably not beyond your ability, but might indeed exceed your attention span.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 01:26:00 PM
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless  :P
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 19, 2017, 01:30:12 PM
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so like I said my claim was not baseless.

It is also relevant and begs the question if Nasa have been in space why do the have to use CGI ?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Copper Knickers on May 19, 2017, 01:46:14 PM
I think what makes a lot of people sceptical about the globe theory is that we have apparently been in space  thousands of times but there are very few pictures / images that stand up in photoshop.

Have you honestly tried to research this? There are many, many photos taken on space voyages. Over 14,000 in the Apollo archive here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums) for instance.

Quote
For example if I was an astronaut I would simply put my mobile phone to the window and record the rocket taking off and docking at the space station in one unbroken real video;
 this has not been done yet even though mobiles have had cameras on for over ten years.

Do astronauts take their mobile phones with them? Well I suppose they might..

That would be a long video though. The space shuttle used to take a couple of days to dock with the ISS. The Soyuz is quicker but still takes around 6 hours.

Quote
They could also make another Hubble type telescope launch it into deep space and set it up so it shows the earth and other planets orbiting the sun or the cheaper option would be to turn hubble round.This has not been done yet. ( can you see the pattern?)

There are many satellites taking pictures of earth constantly. Some such as Himawari-8 (http://www.goes.noaa.gov/f_himawari-8.html) or DSCOVR-EPIC (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/) take images of the whole earth.

Quote
I'm not saying the earth is flat because that is something I have yet to verify for myself but I struggle to understand why CGI has to be used when we have allegedly been in space thousands of times so it is not unreasonable for the millions of people to be sceptical about the globe theory.

You can stop struggling to understand why CGI has to be used because it's not true. See above.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 19, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
I don't think what I said has been understood  :-[ I can verify that my computer works as It comes in pieces,motherboard ,graphics card ect I build it then plug it in and it works.

How can I verify that two black holes collided one hundred thousand light years away ?

If this can't be verified by myself it then requires a massive amount of faith for me to believe what the scientists have observed is true  just as religion requires a massive amount of faith to believe what has been written is true.

Is science the new religion.?

Your logic is seriously flawed.
You know nothing regarding the workings of your computer that you yourself have determined. All you can ever know are the inputs and outputs, the processing will for ever remain unknown to you. You have to take on good authority how all the various components work, even down to the existance of the election itself.......have you ever seen one?

It's the same for black holes, their existance has been both predicted by calculations and observed indirectly. What's the difference? In both cases you have to accept what you are being led to believe is indeed the case.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 19, 2017, 03:38:19 PM
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless  :P
NASA announced how the 2002 blue marble photo was produced.
One photo that was announced as computer generated is no evidence that all photos from space are "CGI".
That is not more logical than saying that our cat was white, so all cats are white.

Not only that but the "2002 Blue Marble" is much more than just "an image of earth as seen from space".
It is really just one view made from a huge database of the whole globe.

What evidence have you that any other claimed genuine space photos are "CGI"?

On "the other site" I was answering the following post:
Hello,
I am new to this forum and society.  I am researching various things and I am curious to how "Flat Earth" believers handle the story and picture from Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander, called Earthrise?
Here is a link to a story where he even showed a reporter the negative for the picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/earthrise.html
Thank you,
QFT
This photos in that link were ridiculed in this post:
First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs . . . . . . Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough... :)

Here is some of the information that I used to answer that totally uninformed post:

The Apollo photos were taken on film and the negatives are still "available".
The photo questioned above is this "Earthrise" photo taken by Willian Anders (the left one below):
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/img/e2.jpg)
The colour photograph of Earthrise - taken by
Apollo 8 astronaut, William A. Anders, December
 24, 1968. Although the photograph is usually
mounted with the moon below the earth, this is
how Anders saw it.
         
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/img/earthrisec.jpg)
Black and white photograph of Earthrise
 - taken by Apollo 8 commander, Frank Borman,
December 24, 1968.
Both photos from: ABC, Science, "That Photograph" (http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/earthrise.htm)
The information I have is that the camera used by William Landers was a modified Hasselblad 500 EL camera, using the  250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lens as described in:
Quote
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_8/images/A08camera.gif)     Cameras and Accessories
The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses. For certain photographs of the lunar surface, a 60-millimeter lens with a reseau was used. Use of this lens and reseau is apparent in the views that show crosslike fiducial marks. For analytical purposes, black-and-white emulsions were determined to provide a higher degree of resolution and image clarity than the color emulsions; therefore, much of the photography is black-and-white.
From: Lunar and Planetary Institute. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_8/photography/)

Yet, when looked at objectively that Earthrise photo has the earth just the size that would be expected on that camera and that distance.
More detail is in Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index. « Message by rabinoz on November 12, 2016, 06:24:18 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65666.msg1837330;topicseen#msg1837330)

The summary of that post was: The information I have is that the camera used was: The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.[/quote]

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.
[/quote]

Just remember that the Apollo were taken on film and the negatives are preserved and agree with photos in the media, published at the time.

They were most certainly not CGI!

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: markjo on May 19, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless  :P
Not really.  CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.

It's more of a photoshopped composite image, like stitching together images to make a panorama.

The 1972 Apollo 17 Blue Marble, on the other hand, is an old school, film based photograph.  No CGI.  No composite.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 19, 2017, 04:16:37 PM
The 2002 blue marble image is CGI so as I said my claim was not baseless  :P
Not really.  CGI generally refers to simulated images, not composites of real images.

It's more of a photoshopped composite image, like stitching together images to make a panorama.

The 1972 Apollo 17 Blue Marble, on the other hand, is an old school, film based photograph.  No CGI.  No composite.

Took the words out of my mouth.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: JackSchitt on May 19, 2017, 04:19:41 PM
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: coffeecrisp on May 19, 2017, 06:17:48 PM
@Coffercrisp
An interesting point about only the "best" being chosen; could it be that the people who determine who the best are could be looking for intelligent but gullible easily manipulated people who will not go against an already established hypothesis.
For example Einstein over Tesla

Einstein had theorys that nobody could verify.

Tesla had inventions people are still using today but Einstein was generally presented in my  English education as being superior.

There are thousands of university graduates all over the globe and there are plenty of amateurs as well. You really believe that everyone is trying to fool you?

I don’t see the connection with that comment and the case of your English education.

As for Einstein, he is a theoretical physicist. He developed the explanation for the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel prize. This was an important part of quantum physics and it demonstrated that light behaves as particles. Back then, it was generally accepted that light is strictly a wave phenomenon. He wrote his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 which solidified quantum theory.
Some of the things that Einstein has theorized about was developed much later. For example, the laser.
The effects of gravity on time were also measured much later after his death. Gravitational lensing is again, another phenomenon detected much later, after his death.

I’m not saying that I consider Einstein superior to Nicolas Tesla, but Einstein was a thinker. He came up with things that other scientists tested much later. That kind of thing continues to this day because science has a predictive power.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 19, 2017, 07:54:49 PM
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx


"Opium is the religion of the junkie"  -Crackhead Joe
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 20, 2017, 04:13:21 AM
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

He actually wrote....(translation from German)
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is often misquoted.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 20, 2017, 04:36:56 AM
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 20, 2017, 04:51:52 AM
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 20, 2017, 07:44:59 AM
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

"Science is the cocaine of RE"
Hannibaal  ;D
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Crouton on May 20, 2017, 09:56:18 AM
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I sort of agree. Science done well, no, not a religion. Actual science adhered to by people with an unscientific mindset, kind of like a religion. But then again the same is true of everything.

The theoretical stuff? I cringe whenever I hear a scientist start to speculate about worm holes or string theory. Too much of that and you can go full Deepak Chopra.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 20, 2017, 10:34:01 AM
I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.

Nice rebuttal....Guess the case is closed ::)

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 20, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
I'm afraid little of what you state contains any facts whatsoever, s in your case no change required.

Nice rebuttal....Guess the case is closed ::)

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: coffeecrisp on May 20, 2017, 02:07:07 PM
Lmao to the original poster whom started this thread.

Calling science religion is a perfect way to get the typical closed minded person wound up.

Pure science, no, it is not like religion...It is a simple process, very beneficial to the human race. My profession revolves around this type science, pure and unmolested. Idea, test, if it works repeat, if it continues to work call it a day. Simple observation.

However, the hypothetical science (black holes, origins, evolution etc etc) which I believe you are speaking of..That is a different story. That is treated like a religion absolutely... Simply preconceived notions, a needed and desired outcome, followed by loads of faith and wishes. It completely bypasses scientific method, simply an agenda and group think.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion, all science is guarded like a religion by many...They will never admit it, but that does not change the fact.

I sort of agree. Science done well, no, not a religion. Actual science adhered to by people with an unscientific mindset, kind of like a religion. But then again the same is true of everything.

The theoretical stuff? I cringe whenever I hear a scientist start to speculate about worm holes or string theory. Too much of that and you can go full Deepak Chopra.

I don't see a problem with speculating or using your imagination or doing a few mathematical equations. Quite a few well-established theories started off that way. Quantum theory is one example and it touches about quite a few phenomena at the microscopic level. Special relativity is another and touches on the macro level.

Deepak Chopra's brain is a jello. He just strings together words from quantum physics and basically says that the soul exists or something. Richard Dawkins interviewed him. Deepak says a bunch of stuff. Richard tells him that it sounded like he just borrowed concepts from quantum physics, smashed the words together into a incoherent babbling.
Deepak gets offended and says that “the established science stole the words that he is using”.

Although the latter form of science is definitely a religion

You should probably learn what a religion is. Wild guesses, even in the scientific domain, does not constitute a religion.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 20, 2017, 02:16:24 PM
I made that quote not crutonius...

I know exactly what religion is chump... I also know exactly what facts (as close as we can come) are.

You can do whatever you want with math or speculation, I care not..Just don't call it facts or science.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: coffeecrisp on May 20, 2017, 02:49:03 PM
If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.

You did not show the math.
I guess you are using pythagoras equation.

0.94185 ° (this is half your 1.88 °).
3975 miles is the radius of the Earth.

3975 miles / tan(0.94185 °) = 241,790 miles (Earth to the moon distance)

Or in metric:
6400 km is the radius of the Earth.
6400 km / tan(0.94185 °) = 389,297 km (Earth to the moon distance)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 03:58:45 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 04:50:45 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 21, 2017, 05:04:52 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

No, science is not a religion, as there is no central deity to worship. It we take a definition of religion as a starting point.....

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

....we can see that there is no way this can be applied to science as there is no controlling power or god.......so that in turn makes your opening statement patently false.

In regard to the rest of your post, it's so incoherent and full of meaningless ramblings that it does not merit a response.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 05:42:59 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.

Some people have said they have been abducted by aliens.

Some people have said they have seen God.

When people say things it doesn't mean they are true.

It is a personal choice do you believe them or not ?

Belief requires faith.

Did they ask the particles that almost travelled at the speed of light if they experienced relativity ?

No one has travelled at the speed of light and no one ever will.

Did you know that I caught the biggest fish in the universe yesterday you don't have to take my word for it ;
I don't have any real pictures but I have some CGI and some calculations and my mates seen the hole it made in the net when it escaped. ;)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 05:56:59 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

No, science is not a religion, as there is no central deity to worship. It we take a definition of religion as a starting point.....

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

....we can see that there is no way this can be applied to science as there is no controlling power or god.......so that in turn makes your opening statement patently false.

In regard to the rest of your post, it's so incoherent and full of meaningless ramblings that it does not merit a response.

religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Another scientific fundamentalist in denial.

How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?

More like you have no coherent response.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 21, 2017, 05:59:50 AM
Some people have said they have been abducted by aliens.

Some people have said they have seen God.
And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.

When people say things it doesn't mean they are true.
This.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 06:00:11 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 21, 2017, 06:23:46 AM
And some people are retards, so they say science is a religion.

Good one ???

Please get help for your own personal well being.

Quote from: loneranger
Semantics

The typical defense I have seen from people like this when they are cornered. ::)


I repeat this

Science is only touted when convenient like many other things. However, if it doesn't align with a preconceived notion, agenda or group think it is rejected out right...Or some mathematical nonsensical rhetoric soup is used to attempt justification of an outcome. Even though the equations would never work in reality and completely bypasses the scientific method or even simple logic and observation itself.

I love unmolested true science, my livelihood and profession lives in it. I equally detest hypothetical, nonsensical science used by many sects, people with agenda, and group think.

True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..

Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...

The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.

Sorry kids
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 06:36:11 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.

I have travelled on public transport hundreds of times and the drivers where not drunk.

Nobody has travelled at the speed of light and nobody ever will.

To try an associate the two is a nonsense.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 06:49:07 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Copper Knickers on May 21, 2017, 07:39:16 AM
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?

To what degree is the earth said to be oblate? Would you expect this degree to be noticeable in photos of the earth from space?

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2017, 07:51:50 AM
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?
Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space.  However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.

More like you have no coherent response.
No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 08:57:24 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 If this is what the people of your scientific religion call evidence or proof it is little wonder that millions of people don't believe in your religion.

I have never seen anything that would suggest time it self does exist it is just how we measure the passing of minutes hours  days ect.

Nobody has ever travelled through time and nobody ever will.

Nobody has ever slowed time down or  speeded time up and no one ever will.

I have no need to waste my "time"and  learn about your nonsensical religion
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 21, 2017, 08:58:38 AM
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..

Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...

The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.

Sorry kids
No wonder that this comes from a ME  ::)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 09:09:26 AM
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?
Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space.  However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.

More like you have no coherent response.
No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
The pictures and images of earth Nasa have given us show a round planet not an oblate spheroid.

So you are saying the Earth is an oblate spheroid but you can't tell from the pictures and CGI or sorry not CGI the hundreds of pictures Nasa stitched together using a computer to produce the Blue Marble ?

Ok  ;D

Do Santa and the Tooth Fairy have anything to do with it?

I think they must have only Santa and the Tooth Fairys magic combined could make an oblate spheroid look like a circle.


Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 09:35:21 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 

Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 21, 2017, 09:42:08 AM
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?
Because the oblateness is to subtle to be visible from space.  However, the French Geodesic Mission set out to measure the oblateness in the 18th century.

More like you have no coherent response.
No, it's more like you don't understand what you're arguing against.
The pictures and images of earth Nasa have given us show a perfectly round planet not an oblate spheroid.

How can you tell from the images available whether it's perfectly round or slightly oblate? Have you tried to measure any of them? If the polar diameter of earth in an image is 2000 pixels, how many pixels would the equatorial diameter be using the shape of, say, the WGS84 ellipsoid?

Quote
So you are saying the Earth is an oblate spheroid but you can't tell from the pictures ...?

Yes. Have you calculated how obvious (or not) it should be yet? Do you know how to do that?

Quote
Do Santa and the Tooth Fairy have anything to do with it?

No. You're just being silly.

Quote
I think they must have only Santa and the Tooth Fairys magic combined could make an oblate spheroid look like a perfect circle.

You might think that. You'd be wrong. You're merely explaining why treating the earth as a perfect sphere works well enough for many purposes, but only very precise situations require the slightly more accurate, but much more complex, ellipsoidal model.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 21, 2017, 09:48:58 AM
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..

Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...

The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.

Sorry kids
No wonder that this comes from a ME  ::)

What because nonsense masquerading under the guise of "science" isn't welcome in my field?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 09:50:20 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 

Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.

You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.

Hope that helps
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 09:56:26 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 

Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.

You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.


So why do clocks go slower in airplanes? And why do they go exactly as much slower as the Lorentz equation predicts?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 21, 2017, 10:33:11 AM

So why do clocks go slower in airplanes?

Flight phobia!  ???
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 21, 2017, 10:37:48 AM
True Science= Fantastic, helpful, gets fairly accurate "facts" etc..

Hypothetical "science"= Fun, but not facts or science in the correct form. Though unfortunately this is the issue, it is spouted as absolute fact and nincompoops parrot the same sentiment. See above quote...

The latter is a religion, belief, or whatever you want to call it...Anything but science or fact.

Sorry kids
No wonder that this comes from a ME  ::)

What because nonsense masquerading under the guise of "science" isn't welcome in my field?

Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 21, 2017, 11:40:57 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 

Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.

You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.


So why do clocks go slower in airplanes? And why do they go exactly as much slower as the Lorentz equation predicts?
You scientific fundamentalists are hard work.
Why do people of your religion believe anything ?
And why do they argue about things they have not verified for themselves ?

It is irrelevant whether clocks slow down or not on a plane.

It is irrelevant if someone has retro fitted a formula to support their nonsensical hypothesis.

Clocks only measure seconds and hours.

Time is a word we use to describe the passing of seconds hours minutes days ect.

Nobody has travelled through time.

Nobody has slowed time down.

Nobody has speeded time up.
 
And nobody ever will.

This is because time doesn't physically exist.

Nobody has travelled at the speed of light and nobody ever will.

It is all nonsense only scientific fundamentalists and stupid and gullable people believe.

Right I'm off to my nearest church to argue with Christians about Jesus will probobly get more sense out of them. :)



Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 11:45:06 AM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 

Yes, this is what "time dilation" stands for. That things happen slower. I do not know what "time itself goes slower" even means.

You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.


So why do clocks go slower in airplanes? And why do they go exactly as much slower as the Lorentz equation predicts?

It is irrelevant whether clocks slow down or not on a plane.


Ok.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on May 21, 2017, 01:54:43 PM
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.

Hope that helps

I don't accept the argument that RiF is making here, but I do think this is a rather clever post. I would like it if someone expounded a little more on why this line of reasoning is incorrect. (I know in my head, but I don't think I can articulate it well.)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 21, 2017, 02:03:06 PM
Stop quoting eachother without deleting the old quotes. It's really annoying...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 02:09:11 PM
You hit the nail on the head that many people of your religion do not understand basic logic.

I will give some examples to help:

Using your religions logic.

I smashed my clock yesterday and it stopped working.

Because my clock stopped working I stopped time it self.

I placed a magnet near my clock and it slowed it down.

Because the magnet slowed the clock down magnets can slow time it self down.

A clock stopping or slowing down does not prove that time has been effected at all it just means the medium we use to measure time has been effected.

Hope that helps

I don't accept the argument that RiF is making here, but I do think this is a rather clever post. I would like it if someone expounded a little more on why this line of reasoning is incorrect. (I know in my head, but I don't think I can articulate it well.)

His line of reasoning is not really incorrect. there are many reasons why a clock may slow down. So if you want to test Special Relativity, do not put the clock beside a magnet.

When the clock in your bedroom stops at all, it is either broken or your bedroom dashes with light speed through the universe. Hard to tell, before you have your morning coffee and remember that you smashed it yesterday.






EDIT: For the purists: I know, it does not work that way, because reference frame and stuff...

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: BrightNextStep on May 21, 2017, 02:14:40 PM
agreed that the "new science" denies a Creator.   ("God" is reportedly code for doG-ma or religion which denies spirituality).

This thread got me to add science to the two known (to me at least) control structures: religion and government.  fake science is indeed another.  consider the hiding of proven breakthroughs at the NIH and CDC and the complete nonsense of global warming and the scare of running out of oil.  on and on.  the better, private oil companies never call it "fossil fuel"!

sorry for the tangent.  my point is that Creator deniers tend to be leftists/liberals/socialists/communists and put their faith in the government.
Creator embracers or the far right want their religious doGma forced on the voters.
now i consider those who blindly believe "studies" as promoted by the AMA, etc.  doctors never consider fake science from the AMA that was initially a pay-to-promote organization.  some say it still is.

To answer the OP's question, it seems that science was always linked with or hiding from religion.  chemists claimed to be alchemists so that the religions would leave them alone because they were convinced they were nuts.  perhaps, the vatican had to co-op many scientists to further their control structure.  so i guess as i ramble on, sorry, my answer is YES!   :-*

Science was religion in all past of the world. But it was accepting the God. But updated fake/Darwinist science made [it a co-op] to real science. This is a religion too but denying to the real science. It should be destroyed is an Emergency coded task.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 21, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me.

You did not show the math.
I guess you are using pythagoras equation.

0.94185 ° (this is half your 1.88 °).
3975 miles is the radius of the Earth.

3975 miles / tan(0.94185 °) = 241,790 miles (Earth to the moon distance)

Or in metric:
6400 km is the radius of the Earth.
6400 km / tan(0.94185 °) = 389,297 km (Earth to the moon distance)
Yes, funny how these things work out when you really look into it.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 21, 2017, 02:19:15 PM
Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?

Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.

Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.

I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.

This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.

Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.

Simply this...I believe the higher power I have faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.

The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither. Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.

When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 02:33:46 PM
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible..

(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)

Yes, Babybrain. Tell us all about it.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 21, 2017, 02:41:21 PM
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible..

(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)

Yes, Babybrain. Tell us all about it.

I know I am picking on your religion and hitting a nerve, but you don't have to get snippy cup cake.

You are still sexy though...However, better start walking west, the Google balloon is moving further and further.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 21, 2017, 03:12:33 PM
It is irrelevant whether clocks slow down or not on a plane.

It is irrelevant if someone has retro fitted a formula to support their nonsensical hypothesis.

Clocks only measure seconds and hours.

1. It is not irrelevant. That's the whole point of this argument. You have yet to provide an explanation.

2. Citation needed for your retrofit claim.

3. Get a better clock?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 21, 2017, 03:13:00 PM
You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

We can observe particles that travel with almost light speed. They follow the Lorentz Transformation. Even things like airplanes measurably follow the Lorentz transformation. So time dilation exists, it is a proven fact. Which part of it is a "religion"?

You say we as if we can all witness particles that travel at "almost light speed"

What you should said is someone has said that these people say they have witnessed particles almost travelling at the speed of light.


Well, many people, not some. It is routine.

So either every experimental physician without exception is a fraud or time dilation is real. Decide by yourself, what is more likely.

It does not require faith in the sense you mean it. It requires the same amount of trust that you have when you enter a bus and expect that the bus driver is not drunken.

I disagree they could just be mistaken not necessarily a fraud personally I don't have the faith to believe them or I'm  just not stupid or gullable enough.

How does me getting on a bus and believing the driver is not drunk
the same as me believing Einsteins theorys.


No, you just have no idea how these experiments and observations are conducted. Nor do you know why Special Relativity was postulated and how it was tested. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to learn about it.

How is it possible that every experimenter is "mistaken", when all he has to do is measure if clocks in airplanes go slower than clocks at rest? Or when he just have to measure the speed of mesons and note that they exist longer as their known properties would allow without time dilation?

You may not know that clocks only measure seconds and hours just because a clock allegedly goes slower on a plane does not prove that time itself goes slower.
 If this is what the people of your scientific religion call evidence or proof it is little wonder that millions of people don't believe in your religion.

I have never seen anything that would suggest time it self does exist it is just how we measure the passing of minutes hours  days ect.

Nobody has ever travelled through time and nobody ever will.

Nobody has ever slowed time down or  speeded time up and no one ever will.

I have no need to waste my "time"and  learn about your nonsensical religion

In your ignorance you are of course incorrect.
The muon time dilation experiment says otherwise, but as this is most likely outwith your comprehension level perhaps you should instead look at the following experiment carried out in the 1970s

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity. The results were published in Science in 1972, so you can go and check.

Most likely you will throw your hands up in horror and deny this ever took place, or else you'll make up some other equally irrational excuse to refute its validity, such are the ways of the ill-educated But in the end the choice is yours, to learn or to forever wallow in self enforced ignorance. Regardless of what you think the experiment took place and stands as proof for SR.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 21, 2017, 03:38:30 PM
Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?

Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.

Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.

I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.

That's engineering.

Quote
This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.

Simple yes or no what? The hard facts are the the earth is spherical. Period. Yet people go on and on about how it isn't. Look at this website.

Quote
Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc.

All of those are scientific topics. GR has been widely tested and never yet failed. Evolution fits the evidence and nothing more plausible has displaced it. Yet. Origins of life and the universe are more difficult to test. String theory is still very much in its infancy - it's not been unambiguously tested. Yet.

Quote
Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.

OK.

Quote
Simply this...I believe the higher power I have faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.

The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither.

Are the people you have the issue with scientists? "Yuppies" is not a very useful description, but suggests they aren't.
 
Quote
Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.

When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..

The question is: is there unambiguous evidence for what is claimed? If not yet, should it be possible to devise a test?

Faith is for ideas that can't be tested. That is outside the realm of science. "Belief" is vague: "I believe in God" - fine, but there's no test possible to test whether you're right or not. "I believe the result of the experiment means this..." means there needs to be a better experiment or better analysis of the result to reach a conclusive result.

See the difference? Probably not.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 21, 2017, 05:02:37 PM

religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Another scientific fundamentalist in denial.
Science is not "a superhuman controlling power" and in particular not "a personal God or gods".
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?

More like you have no coherent response.
Yes, I have a very "coherent response" and it's even very relevant.
And it's much "More like you have" have never even really looked at the claimed dimensions of the earth!

The currently accepted figures seem to be: polar diameter = 12,714 km and equatorial diameter = 12,756 km.
Making the difference only 0.34% or 1 part in 298, so the earth is an oblate spheroid, but so close to a sphere that a photo of it looks round. See this photo from the EPIC on DSCOVR:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/2017032602248%20-%20epic_1b_20170326022438_02_zpskehscjit.jpg)
2017032602248 - epic_1b_20170326022438_02
On that photo, as near as I can determine the width (equatorial) is 850 pixels and the height is 845 pixels.
So the diameters differ by 0.59%, nearly double what it "should be", but a pixel or two would make all the difference. To add to the problem, the atmosphere causes a blur of a few kilometres all around, making accurate measurement difficult.

But, the whole point is that the earth is very close to being a perfect sphere and this is not a new discovery!
Quote from: Wikipedia
Spherical Earth
The realization that the figure of the Earth is more accurately described as an ellipsoid dates to the 17th century, as described by Isaac Newton in Principia. In the early 19th century, the flattening of the earth ellipsoid was determined to be of the order of 1/300 (Delambre, Everest). The modern value as determined by the US DoD World Geodetic System since the 1960s is close to 1/298.25.

So please, before making outlandish claims, read a bit more and find out about the subject you are ridiculing.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 21, 2017, 11:16:09 PM
Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?

Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.

Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.
I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.

This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.
Try to look further than your own profession. Not everything is ME.
And even in ME its not binary at all, it's about probabilities...

Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.
You know that a whole lot of chemistry/biology etc. is "hypothetical" to some degree, and they work with "models" that work in real life, but you do not know whether or not those really are true? Aditionally, those models or some "hard facts" we have nowdays started out as "hypothetical science" back in the days.

Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.

Simply this...I believe the higher power I have faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.

The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither. Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.

When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..
I'm rather sure there is more evidence for GR, macro evolution etc than there is for a higher power. Because there is no evidence for a higher power.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 03:33:48 AM
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 03:35:28 AM
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

Those proof only that the writer has bad education.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 23, 2017, 04:59:59 AM
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
In this post you asked for a coherent answer
How is saying that the earth is meant to be an oblate spheroid but non of NASA's CGI or so called pictures confirm this incoherent ?
More like you have no coherent response.
and I gave you a coherent answer in Re: Is Science the new Religion ? « Reply #86 on: May 22, 2017, 10:02:37 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70710.msg1912150#msg1912150)
If you won't acknowledge my answers to your posts, why should I bother refuting your uninformed statements?

Debate is a two-way process Mr Resistance.is.Futile.

Now, when it comes to Eric Dubay's "200 Proofs Earth is not a Spinning Ball", you present them one-by-one and I'll debunk them one-by-one.

If you expect me or anyone else to wade through all those, think again. But I'll look at the first:
Quote from: Eric Dubay
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

Answer to Eric Dubay's #1:
This is no proof at all! It's not even evidence!
The horizon should appear perfectly flat 360° around the observer at low level and nearly so till you get very high.
If you disagree, please post you evidence.

On the Globe earth, the horizon looks exactly the same whichever direction you look.
Imagine you are in a small boat in a large calm lake with your eye-level 6 feet above the water.
Whichever direction you look the horizon will always be 3 miles away and near enough to eye-level, so whichever way you turn the horizon is at exactly the same level and perfectly flat.

So from sea level, the horizon of the Globe must be precisely flat left-to-right.

Whatever your altitude, the horizon will always be exactly the same distance away and very, very slightly below a true horizontal at eye-level. Even at a height of 30,000 ft, the horizon is only 3.1° below eye level easily measurable but not easy to see from a plane with no horizontal reference.

What you are always doing is looking at a slight downward angle on a very large circle about your location.
When this down angle (dip angle as it is called) gets large enough we can see a slight curve.

Depending on the field of view this is claimed to be anywhere from about 50,000 to 90,000 feet.
I'll just give the link to this video: Show me the Curvature... Here it is. Wolfie6020 (http://)

Maybe you could look at a video about the horizon.
It covers the "flat horizon" and the "horizon not rising to eye-level":

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason



Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 05:41:30 AM
8)
Number 8
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
8)
Number 8
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
Answer: Potential energy.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 06:04:03 AM
8)
Number 8
The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

please show the source of your information how they measure the depth they had to dig.

you claim that they dig the bottom exactly flat and not following the earth curvature.

please show us how they did the complete measuring of the canal across the distance.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 07:31:43 AM

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 07:42:11 AM

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

how did you (or somebody else) measure that straight line?
please show us the source for the information about your claim.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 08:10:48 AM

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

how did you (or somebody else) measure that straight line?
please show us the source for the information about your claim.

LOL  He seems unaware that the datum for sea-level is curved.   This stuff from Eric Dupay has been debunked many times already.   I think there was a whole series of threads a few years back  on the "200 proofs"   not one of the 200 so called proofs stood up. 

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 09:34:18 AM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 09:57:57 AM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 11:17:22 AM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.

The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 23, 2017, 11:19:57 AM
He realized his claims on the last few pages couldn't stand up to scrutiny, so now he's spamming old debunked FE garbage. That's rich.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
Have you done so? Or are you just saying you could if you wanted to?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 11:32:43 AM
No not yet.

 NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.

Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 23, 2017, 11:43:23 AM
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.

Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 11:45:47 AM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.

The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.

ok you than saw it yourself.

i can say i saw the effect of the earth curvature here in Canada when i view across Lake Ontario to Toronto and it match exactly the global earth.

how can we find out why it is different?
do you have any pictures or videos that supports your claim?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 11:47:00 AM
No not yet.

 NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.

Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

why do you start a new topic before the other is clarified?

do you try to avoid to provide a answer?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 12:06:45 PM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.

The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.

ok you than saw it yourself.

i can say i saw the effect of the earth curvature here in Canada when i view across Lake Ontario to Toronto and it match exactly the global earth.

how can we find out why it is different?
do you have any pictures or videos that supports your claim?

I could link a  video of Chicago visable from  the other side of Lake michigan .
I think its better people verify things for themselves if you want to see it just Google it.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 12:10:28 PM
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.

Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.

If you say so;do you wear spectacles ? what about polaris at the north pole how would that be possible on the heliocentric model?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 23, 2017, 12:14:41 PM
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.

Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.

If you say so;do you wear spectacles ? what about polaris at the north pole how would that be possible on the heliocentric model?

 ???
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 12:21:38 PM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.

The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.

ok you than saw it yourself.

i can say i saw the effect of the earth curvature here in Canada when i view across Lake Ontario to Toronto and it match exactly the global earth.

how can we find out why it is different?
do you have any pictures or videos that supports your claim?

I could link a  video of Chicago visable from  the other side of Lake michigan .
I think its better people verify things for themselves if you want to see it just Google it.

ok than i take from that that you did not see it yourself, where did you got the information for your claim.

i can say for myself i saw it with my own eyes at the Lake Ontario.

the Videos you mention for Chicago across Lake Michigan are all explained that it is a refraction at some days.

we now can agree that you claim is unproven from your side and even disproven from my side.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 12:27:15 PM
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

No, it cannot. I know that. Don't believe anything you see on youtube, just because you want to believe it.

Even at about 5 degrees Southern latitute, I could not see Polaris anymore.

If you say so;do you wear spectacles ? what about polaris at the north pole how would that be possible on the heliocentric model?

how is the polaris possible in the flat earth model.
the polaris is (more or less) direct above the north pole.
why is polaris not visible south of the equator?
and at the equator polaris seams to be at the horizon in the north direction.

please explain that.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 23, 2017, 01:12:07 PM
The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
Have you done so? Or are you just saying you could if you wanted to?

No not yet.

Now that that's clear, onward!

NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining.

It's two quadrillion miles away. How do you propose measuring its distance more accurately? Why is this significant? Are you intimidated by astronomical numbers? They are vastly larger than your everyday experience and can be unsettling to people who think small, which most flat-earth believers seem to.

Quote
However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.

??? There's nothing to explain. No one familiar with the motion of the earth claims it does. In about 15,000 years Polaris will be about 27° from the celestial pole. It's not perfectly aligned now, and it's almost as close as it's going to get.

Where did you hear that? Did you believe it because someone said so in a youtube video and you want to believe it? You need to be more skeptical and find better sources.

Quote
Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated [about 3/4 degree from] directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere [south of about 1° south latitude]. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent.

That's right! This is why Polaris can't be seen at all from more than a degree or so south of the equator.

Quote
Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

Citation needed.

Was this from youtube, too?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 02:24:02 PM
If the earth is orbiting the sun
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.

There are many videos online that show most of the stars orbiting around the north pole  on the geocentric model there is an image of the above in this link.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

On the geocentric model the stars orbit the earth ( un logo )polaris stays above magnetic north (centre) so from the equater it would appear to be on the horizon on the geocentric model also.

I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
 I'm interested in both geocentric and heliocentric models.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 02:31:44 PM
If the earth is orbiting the sun
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.

There are many videos online that show most of the stars orbiting around the north pole  on the geocentric model there is an image of the above in this link.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

On the geocentric model the stars orbit the earth ( un logo )polaris stays above magnetic north (centre) so from the equater it would appear to be on the horizon on the geocentric model also.

I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
 I'm interested in both geocentric and heliocentric models.
Did you ever visit school? Are you trolling?
It's not like our galaxy get's mixed all the time. Polaris and our solar system are part of our galaxy but their relative positions stay more or less the same.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 23, 2017, 02:36:03 PM
If the earth is orbiting the sun
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.

Because it's really really really really really really really far away. Get it now?

I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)

That sounds like a sad way to live your life. That also sounds like an excuse so you can argue from incredulity. Actually, that's exactly what it is.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 03:03:00 PM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

Its hard to believe with all the spinning tilting and wobbling.
That is definitely something I can't verify and I just don't have the faith to believe it.
How can I be trolling this is meant to be a flat earth site and I'm trying to get information to verify the geocentric model if it was a site for astro physicists then you would have a point.
I posted the link initally to gauge a reaction one of your colleague's said he would go through them one by one.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Copper Knickers on May 23, 2017, 03:19:54 PM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 23, 2017, 03:50:55 PM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.


Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.

You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12  signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.

The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.
 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 23, 2017, 05:21:37 PM
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.

It's funny at times,

Annoying others,

As well as disturbing on top of that...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 23, 2017, 05:41:08 PM
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.

It's funny at times,

Annoying others,

As well as disturbing on top of that...

I think you are more a member of a cult.

The only cult I follow is that I like to see evidence for claims that somebody makes.

As I saw from you posts on threads here you are a member of the cult to believe in a idea without any evidence.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!


http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1

please provide the source of your information that both lights are visible.
I like to check that.

The source is irrelevant it is something us Brits can verify for ourselves .
I expected you to say it was a superior mirage or refraction.

You are correct,  it  is most likely refraction at those heights and distances.    It only takes a vertical temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter to bend light sufficiently  to match the curvature of the earth.  Temperature gradients of that magnitude and more are common over water. 

It's unlikely to be a mirage,  looming is more likely.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 08:33:33 PM
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.

I suppose to the ignorant or uneducated,  science can seem like a cult.  It has it's own laws and jargon.   

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 23, 2017, 10:30:39 PM
Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.

It's funny at times,

Annoying others,

As well as disturbing on top of that...

I think you are more a member of a cult.

The only cult I follow is that I like to see evidence for claims that somebody makes.

As I saw from you posts on threads here you are a member of the cult to believe in a idea without any evidence.

Evidence lol... Right...

That word gets thrown around like hotcakes with no foundation these days in many areas.


Lol...Canadabear, you and those like you speak as those in a cult.

I suppose to the ignorant or uneducated,  science can seem like a cult.  It has it's own laws and jargon.   


Typically it's the ignorant and uneducated that parrot whatever they were told to parrot without understanding a single line of it.

Many times it's religion, just as many times now it is "science" unfortunately. A system that is abused for agenda/group think and lost its useful roots in many sects.

I have already stated the difference in real science and "religious science"...I live and approve of the former, not latter. Though the latter is just fine as long as it isn't touted as "fact"... Herein lies the problem.


With research and critical thinking, avoiding the "conclusions" of researchers in such hypothetical rhetoric, and studying just the data... You learn how weak the house of cards really is (5 percent science, 95 percent conclusion of whatever the agenda/group think postulates).. Simply group think and agenda. However I can say the exact same with organized religion. You actually study the source material (speaking of Christianity), you understand most churches are simply a business, following the greed and power manual and not the source the belief is based off of.

I am equal opportunity in my distain for lies, agenda and group think no matter the source
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 10:39:26 PM
With research and critical thinking, avoiding the "conclusions" of researchers in such hypothetical rhetoric, and studying just the data... You learn how weak the house of cards really is (5 percent science, 95 percent conclusion of whatever the agenda/group think postulates).. Simply group think and agenda. However I can say the exact same with organized religion. You actually study the source material (speaking of Christianity), you understand most churches are simply a business, following the greed and power manual and not the source the belief is based off of.

Interesting point here.
Would you mind deliver some examples? Does this apply to all parts of science?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 23, 2017, 10:49:42 PM
Interesting point here.
Would you mind deliver some examples? Does this apply to all parts of science?

No, and you know this. I have been very clear on the difference between real science and hypothetical science. My distain is only for hypothetical science, and not even the product itself, but how it is used and abused. It is simply the god of a religion...

Real science there is no room for opinions, group think, personal feelings or anyone's agenda. It's binary, either a yes or no, it works or it doesn't..Doesn't matter how you feel about it or what you wanted/needed.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 10:57:58 PM
I don't know exactely about ME, but in a lot of science (biology/chemistry) things often are far from being binary.

Would you still call them 'real science'?
What is if something (e.g. medication) works, but the working mechanisms are not understood very well? Is it science?

Again; how can you say you could draw a clear line between real and hypothetical science? How are they even distinguishable?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 23, 2017, 11:09:17 PM
What is if something (e.g. medication) works, but the working mechanisms are not understood very well? Is it science?

That is still observable facts we can records, replicate, study etc etc etc...Even if we don't understand the exact catalyst.

Gravity would be another good example...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 23, 2017, 11:14:36 PM
So, if in 'hypothetical science' we can replicate an experiment, this means it would then be 'real science'?

What if I told you that 'real science' often starts as 'hypothetical science'?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 01:50:17 AM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.

You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12  signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.

The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.

So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?

If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun  as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.

Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.





Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 02:16:06 AM
If you know nothing, you shouldn't try to play the 'smart card' but keep your mouth shout, visit a library and educate yourself.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 24, 2017, 02:49:38 AM
Real science there is no room for opinions, group think, personal feelings or anyone's agenda. It's binary, either a yes or no, it works or it doesn't..Doesn't matter how you feel about it or what you wanted/needed.

You obviously have never done any "real" science,   opinions are everywhere and fought over like you  wouldn't believe,  like it or not,  everyone has an agenda and personal feelings.    What matters in the end is evidence and experiment,   often it's never binary,  it's  a question of  the degree of understanding all the real world variables,   like did you account for temperature gradient when you measured the earth's curvature by seeing if you could see a 66 ft high lighthouse from 30 miles away.   

Scientific debate is the foundation on which "real science"  is built.   Dumb, unsupported ideas don't last very long.   

To argue that everything is either black or white,  is to miss the point.  It's not a case of it works or doesn't,  it's a case of why did it work,  or why didn't  it work.   Big difference.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 02:51:58 AM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.

You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12  signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.

The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.

So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?

If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun  as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.

Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.

You want to know about Stars?
Why not start here:-

http://www.space.com/33544-million-galaxies-dot-huge-3d-map.html
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 03:07:41 AM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.

You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12  signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.

The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.

So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?

If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun  as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.

Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.

You want to know about Stars?
Why not start here:-

http://www.space.com/33544-million-galaxies-dot-huge-3d-map.html

Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 03:23:55 AM
Ohhh, you haven't time to educate yourself so you prefer shitposting and expect everyone to answer your bullshit?
Nice :)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
Really?

Please explain how Venus shows phases almost the same as does the moon. It looks like this with photos from Feb 27, 2004 to Jun 6, 2004:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Phases_Venus.jpg)
From Phases of Venus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus)

And, how does your "the flat earth model" explain the apparent "retrograde motion of planets", especially of Mars. This sort of motion in the night sky, with a photo taken each night.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Apparent_retrograde_motion_of_Mars_in_2003.gif)
Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003 as seen from Earth
Please detail for us the paths of Venus and Mars to cause this behaviour.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 04:35:19 AM


Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.

simple question: why?

if you do not have time to learn how the stars and planet movements works and how far away stars and planets are and basically how the heliocentric system works, how can you than say that it is wrong.

if do not know anything about a topic (and it seems like you also you are not willing to learn about it) how can you than make a comment about it that it does not work.

you can say you do not believe in it, but we shown you evidence that your opinion about that topic point is wrong.
either you can still say you do not believe us, but without a proof from your side its only your believe and not a fact.
or you can look closer into that topic and try to find out whats wrong about the evidence that is shown to you.

or you can also admit that your initial claim was wrong.

its now up to you to show us evidence for your claims.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 05:00:36 AM
You very confusingly use the term "geocentric model" where you really mean the "flat earth model".
The term "geocentric model" is usually used to refer to a model with a fixed non-rotating Globe, with the sun, moon and stars all rotating around it and there are quite a few people that believe that model.

If the earth is orbiting the sun
and the sun with our solar system is moving through our galaxy how is it possible for Polaris to be above the north pole constant when it is meant to be so far away it doesn't even change from summer to winter and where meant to be on opposite sides of the sun.
No problem at all - the stars are a very great distance away!

At the September equinox the earth is about 300,000,000 km from where it was at the March equinox.
The distance, 300,00,000 km, is about 0.00003171 Light Years.
And Polaris is about 433.8 light years away,
so the change of elevation angle of Polaris is 0.00003171/433.8 radians, or 0.0151 arc seconds.
The parallax of a star if the change in angle for an earth movement of one Astronomical Unit, which is the average distance of the earth from the sun.
The Parallax (π) of Polaris is quoted as 7.54 ± 0.11 mas, where mas is the abbreviation used for 0.001 of an arc second (an arc second is 1/3600 of a degree).

Note that the angle, 0.0151 arc seconds, we calculated above is close to twice the 7.54 mas quoted for Polaris.

Yes, it all fits the Heliocentric Model very well thank you.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
There are many videos online that show most of the stars orbiting around the north pole on the geocentric model there is an image of the above in this link.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
Rebuttals and Refutations, 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Refutations (http://the-uncredibles.tumblr.com/200proofs)
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
On the geocentric model the stars orbit the earth (un logo) polaris stays above magnetic north (centre) so from the equater it would appear to be on the horizon on the geocentric model also.

I do not believe anything I have not verified for myself (As I'm not religious)
I'm interested in both geocentric and heliocentric models.
You state, "polaris stays above magnetic north".
No, Polaris stays almost above the Geographic North Pole - not that same thing.

But, you say that you "do not believe anything" you "have not verified for myself".
Well, I'm sorry to tell you that there will always be things that you cannot personally verify.

Now, you say that you have videos of  (most of?) the stars appearing to rotate about the North Pole, but there are also many videos of the stars rotating about the South Celestial Pole too.

In both the north and the south they appear to rotate about single points - the North and South Celestial Poles.

As shown in this video:

Startrail & Timelapse 2015 - Northern vs Southern Hemisphere, jungynz's channel
Quote from: jungynz's channel
Published on Jan 24, 2016
Time-lapse and star trail video's compiled into a movie - each clip contains around 500 stills rendered using LightRoom and StarStax. The images were taken in summer on the Island of Guernsey UK for the Northern Hemisphere, and the Warrumbungle Ranges near Siding Springs Australia for the Southern Hemisphere.
And here is a very short one taken a few days ago:

Star trails Sydney Australia - P900 facing South, Wolfie6020

Stars in the south behave exactly as in the north except that
in the north, they appear to rotate counterclockwise about the North Celestial Pole (near Polaris) and
in the south, they appear to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole (near the faint star Sigma Octantis).
I ought to know that second, I live in the Southern Hemisphere and can see it on any clear night!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 05:25:24 AM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.

On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.

This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2017, 05:40:13 AM
Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
See, that's your problem.  You're in too much of a hurry.  The quest for knowledge and understanding takes time.

At first glance, the earth looks flat.  But the more you look into it, the less sense a flat earth makes.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 05:51:58 AM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
Quote
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
Quote
On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.

it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth Model
Quote

This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.

i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 08:30:25 AM
You obviously have never done any "real" science,   opinions are everywhere and fought over like you  wouldn't believe,  like it or not,  everyone has an agenda and personal feelings.    What matters in the end is evidence and experiment,   often it's never binary,  it's  a question of  the degree of understanding all the real world variables,   like did you account for temperature gradient when you measured the earth's curvature by seeing if you could see a 66 ft high lighthouse from 30 miles away.   

Scientific debate is the foundation on which "real science"  is built.   Dumb, unsupported ideas don't last very long.   

To argue that everything is either black or white,  is to miss the point.  It's not a case of it works or doesn't,  it's a case of why did it work,  or why didn't  it work.   Big difference.

Semantics again as always, your M.O. will never change will it?

No fucking shit everything has to start with an idea, opinion etc etc etc...However, these are not facts (or as close as we can know in our reality) until processed through true scientific method.

Dumb unsupported ideas do stay in science because of group think
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 08:42:31 AM

No fucking shit everything has to start with an idea, opinion etc etc etc...However, these are not facts (or as close as we can know in our reality) until processed through true scientific method.

Dumb unsupported ideas do stay in science because of group think
The start of the 'true science' method is part of the 'true science' too, no?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 08:47:52 AM
So polaris along with most of the other stars move along with our solar system through our galaxy so their positions stay relativly the same ?

That's part of it. Also, Polaris is a long way away so its movement relative to us is less obvious. Think about looking out of the window of a train, say. Things in the distance don't appear to move anywhere near as fast as things close by.

Have you tried to research this properly at all? Serious question.
To be honest no it's easier to have quick look online then come on here.

I just find it all hard to believe we are told of the big bang and how everything Is indefinatly expanding but the stars in general seem constant.

You are wrong.
The position of the stars are changing.
The easiest way to find out is that you check the star constellations of the 12  signs of zodiac. They do not anymore match up with the original dates.

The universe is expanding since billions of years. You can only look at a timeframe of a few years. You are simply not able to see the change.
Its like you look at a tree only for one day. You also do not see that the tree grows. But if you look over a time of 10 years you can clearly see it.

So the Stars are close enough to appear to move right through the sky on a twenty four hour revolution but far enough away for us to have seen the same constellations for thousands of years even though all the stars are at vastly different distances from the earth they all follow us through the galaxy ?

If this is the case there must be lots of stars that will be different depending on the time of year as we would be differect sides of the sun  as we are told space is three dimensional not just above us.

Can you reference any of these stars so I can verify myself as I'm not religous I don't have the faith to believe it.

You want to know about Stars?
Why not start here:-

http://www.space.com/33544-million-galaxies-dot-huge-3d-map.html

Haven't got time just wanted a few references I could verify myself. To be honest the flat earth model for stars seems to work better than the heliocentric one.
[/quote

thats one reference I gave you, not enough time, time for what?....to be honest the flat earth thinking on starts is a heap of cow pat.....its not clever and its not true as it neither fits with the evidence or with anything approaching reality.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 08:50:37 AM
The start of the 'true science' method is part of the 'true science' too, no?

Yes, when used correctly.. As anything in life, no matter how good, it can be abused and used for Sinister reasons.

I have many thoughts and designs unexplored personally and professionally. No matter how sound my brain thinks they are, it is of no matter, just an educated opinion. It is not until they are demonstrated in reality, under scientific method, can I even remotely say my thoughts are fact.

Musings, thoughts, ideas, dreams etc...Great, I love em, they are what create and progress. Yet they are not facts.

Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 09:09:31 AM
Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.
That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
Just think about it, and please, stop being so ME narrow minded...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 09:25:34 AM
You obviously have never done any "real" science,   opinions are everywhere and fought over like you  wouldn't believe,  like it or not,  everyone has an agenda and personal feelings.    What matters in the end is evidence and experiment,   often it's never binary,  it's  a question of  the degree of understanding all the real world variables,   like did you account for temperature gradient when you measured the earth's curvature by seeing if you could see a 66 ft high lighthouse from 30 miles away.   

Scientific debate is the foundation on which "real science"  is built.   Dumb, unsupported ideas don't last very long.   

To argue that everything is either black or white,  is to miss the point.  It's not a case of it works or doesn't,  it's a case of why did it work,  or why didn't  it work.   Big difference.

Semantics again as always, your M.O. will never change will it?

No fucking shit everything has to start with an idea, opinion etc etc etc...However, these are not facts (or as close as we can know in our reality) until processed through true scientific method.

Dumb unsupported ideas do stay in science because of group think

it starts with an idea and than there will be done experiments to confirm that idea.
these experiments will show if the idea is working.

this is been done since hundreds of years.

We can see from these experiments the shape of the earth.
all experiments show that the earth is a globe.
nobody ever showed a experiment that proved that the earth is flat.
there are a few (always mentioned here) experiment that seem to show a flat earth, but i saw them all disproved.

alone that there are a lot of different Flat Earth Models exist, shows that there is no prove for that idea.
almost for each problem exist a FE-Model but each one does not work always.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 09:33:33 AM
it starts with an idea and than there will be done experiments to confirm that idea.
these experiments will show if the idea is working.

this is been done since hundreds of years.

We can see from these experiments the shape of the earth.
all experiments show that the earth is a globe.
nobody ever showed a experiment that proved that the earth is flat.
there are a few (always mentioned here) experiment that seem to show a flat earth, but i saw them all disproved.

alone that there are a lot of different Flat Earth Models exist, shows that there is no prove for that idea.
almost for each problem exist a FE-Model but each one does not work always.

I am not arguing F.E. or anything specific. Simply debating the correct use of science as well as how it is abused by certain sects.

Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.
That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
Just think about it, and please, stop being so ME narrow minded...

Lmao...So I state a simple fact of science and you say it is bullshit? Very telling indeed.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true... Scientific method is simply a method for testing ideas/hypothesis or whatever you want to call them. See if they work in reality or not. If it works, we keep it, if it doesn't it gets written off or reworked to try again.

I am sorry, science is not a god user lmao.... You crack me up and frighten me all at once sometimes.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 09:39:08 AM
it starts with an idea and than there will be done experiments to confirm that idea.
these experiments will show if the idea is working.

this is been done since hundreds of years.

We can see from these experiments the shape of the earth.
all experiments show that the earth is a globe.
nobody ever showed a experiment that proved that the earth is flat.
there are a few (always mentioned here) experiment that seem to show a flat earth, but i saw them all disproved.

alone that there are a lot of different Flat Earth Models exist, shows that there is no prove for that idea.
almost for each problem exist a FE-Model but each one does not work always.

I am not arguing F.E. or anything specific. Simply debating the correct use of science as well as how it is abused by certain sects.

Science can create nothing, true science simply verify thoughts and ideas to see if they are reality or not. To weed out the dreams from reality.
That's the biggest bullshit I have heard so far from you.
Just think about it, and please, stop being so ME narrow minded...

Lmao...So I state a simple fact of science and you say it is bullshit? Very telling indeed.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what I said, it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true... Scientific method is simply a method for testing ideas/hypothesis or whatever you want to call them. See if they work in reality or not. If it works, we keep it, if it doesn't it gets written off or reworked to try again.

I am sorry, science is not a god user lmao.... You crack me up and frighten me all at once sometimes.

the correct use of science?

it is simple:

the correct use of science is to perform experiments that are repeatable an deliver a clear result.


Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 09:43:45 AM
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...
First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.

Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 09:45:55 AM
the correct use of science?

it is simple:

the correct use of science is to perform experiments that are repeatable an deliver a clear result.

Agreed... So why are we debating then? This is the true science I speak of, it is actually very simple really. We are in agreement apparently.



I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.

Please read the above text
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 09:49:46 AM
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.

For some people, simple things are difficult. Let me help you:
Quote
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...
First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.

Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 10:03:19 AM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
Quote
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
Quote
On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.

it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth Model
Quote

This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.

i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.

Thank you for your help.
Can you please explain why polaris in the north and the southern cross in the south stay constant above the so called poles all year round when the earth tilts 23.5 degrees between summer and winter. (It was 23.5 degrees when I was at school I'm sure you will correct me if that's wrong)
Got the information from link below.


http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
Tilt doesn't change during the year, so it doesn't matter whether it is 0, 5, 23.5 or something else.

Edit: If the axis "points" at polaris at one time in the year, it does so the rest of the year, too.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 10:17:33 AM
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.

For some people, simple things are difficult. Let me help you:
Quote
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...
First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.

Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)

LMFAO!! You are right...Things are hard sometimes..Please look up sarcasm ha ha ha..

You worry me ever so much
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 10:26:23 AM
LMFAO!! You are right...Things are hard sometimes..Please look up sarcasm ha ha ha..

You worry me ever so much

I could reply with exactely the same, don't you think so?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 10:54:11 AM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
Quote
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
Quote
On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.

it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth Model
Quote

This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.

i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.

Thank you for your help.
Can you please explain why polaris in the north and the southern cross in the south stay constant above the so called poles all year round when the earth tilts 23.5 degrees between summer and winter. (It was 23.5 degrees when I was at school I'm sure you will correct me if that's wrong)
Got the information from link below.


http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement

simple, the tilt does change in view of the plane that represent the circulation of the earth around the sun. the rotational axis of the earth points always in direction of polaris and appr. the southern cross.

i suggest you should take a basic course of astronomy, that will help you understand this topic. you should than also be able to use a observation telescope and see the planets closer and see the structure of the moon surface.

BTW: as you already mention the southern cross, how do you explain that the southern cross does not move (or better say only a little) if the stars all circle the north pole?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 10:58:47 AM
I hit quote, but nothing showed..Very telling.

For some people, simple things are difficult. Let me help you:
Quote
it really is a very simple fact about science. It can create nothing, which is true...
First: If you call your statements "true", it doesn't make you sound smart, but sound like Trump.

Anyway, just one example of science creating something:
I present you Crispr/Cas9
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpeqvD6kIZhGb2ur6vmGR4OpHmC-15KhH15rU4QKFFyBTZqcAp4w)

LMFAO!! You are right...Things are hard sometimes..Please look up sarcasm ha ha ha..

You worry me ever so much

with you FEIB it is sometime not easy to decide if you are serious, joking or being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 24, 2017, 12:08:10 PM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.

Do you really think you're special? Just because you're having trouble comprehending astronomy and physics (while we're trying to hold your hand and explain how things work), that means thousands of years of scientific discovery are wrong? And you're right?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 24, 2017, 02:06:05 PM
Just doesn't seem right how we can see the same stars all year round.
the stars that we can see change over the year. look for example the sign of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
Quote
If the earth is rotating facing the sun in the day and facing the opposite way to the sun at midnight I don't see how it is possible for the stars to be so constant when our sun is in a fixed position and we orbit around it .
We should have different view points in regard to our position in the solar system.
and if you learn a little bit about astronomy you see that is that way
Quote
On the geocentric centric model we are told there are apparently three north east and south I'm only able to verify the north with their model (our stars rotate around magnetic north)and from what I have seen it works.

it does not work for southern hemisphere, look up how the stars movement looks on the southern hemisphere and how it would look like in the Flat Earth Model
Quote

This is a flat earth forum so it is the place to post views and opinions and theorys that go against establishment that people of the science religion would consider shit.

i think more this is a place where the Flat Earth Idea can be discussed and the claims for the FEI can be tested.

Thank you for your help.
Can you please explain why polaris in the north and the southern cross in the south stay constant above the so called poles all year round when the earth tilts 23.5 degrees between summer and winter. (It was 23.5 degrees when I was at school I'm sure you will correct me if that's wrong)
Got the information from link below.


http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement

simple, the tilt does change in view of the plane that represent the circulation of the earth around the sun. the rotational axis of the earth points always in direction of polaris and appr. the southern cross.

i suggest you should take a basic course of astronomy, that will help you understand this topic. you should than also be able to use a observation telescope and see the planets closer and see the structure of the moon surface.

BTW: as you already mention the southern cross, how do you explain that the southern cross does not move (or better say only a little) if the stars all circle the north pole?

I don't have the faith to beleve that.




Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 24, 2017, 02:26:06 PM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 24, 2017, 02:51:33 PM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

And lack the initiative to find out. Or are you afraid to because you know what you'll find if you bother to look?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: gotham on May 24, 2017, 04:22:03 PM
A dog feels no embarrassment for endlessly chasing its tail because its own kind understands it may one day succeed.

A REer feels no embarrassment for endlessly describing how the scientific method will one day find truth and its own kind agrees wholeheartedly. 

With people, however, there are FEers who can observe the REers redoing the same experiment over and over and over again.  Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.

It does pain the eyeballs and leave the trained observer irritated/feeling sympathy, at times, with science types that really think they will find proof at the end of their journey.     
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 05:05:11 PM
...
  Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.

...   

Maybe in your eyes you can not see the truth of the science, but that does not mean that is really that way.
You simply do not understand science.
But that is not your fault, it's like that animals can not talk, they simply do not have the ability for that.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 05:08:08 PM
with you FEIB it is sometime not easy to decide if you are serious, joking or being sarcastic.

I will keep this in mind moving forward.

I have a dry sense of humor in real life, prob even worse through text.

What is FEIB?

...
  Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.

...   

Maybe in your eyes you can not see the truth of the science, but that does not mean that is really that way.
You simply do not understand science.
But that is not your fault, it's like that animals can not talk, they simply do not have the ability for that.


Don't be snotty Canadabear...Thought Canadians are supposed to be well mannered and polite?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 05:10:03 PM


I don't have the faith to beleve that.

And that is the problem, you simply believe in something that is shown to you as wrong.
If you say you do not understand the explanations, that totally ok, not everybody can understand science. But that to say because you do not understand it and therefore it is wrong, that is simply stupidity and ignorance.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 24, 2017, 05:13:17 PM
with you FEIB it is sometime not easy to decide if you are serious, joking or being sarcastic.

I will keep this in mind moving forward.

I have a dry sense of humor in real life, prob even worse through text.

What is FEIB?

...
  Ladies and gentleman...there is no truth in science.

...   

Maybe in your eyes you can not see the truth of the science, but that does not mean that is really that way.
You simply do not understand science.
But that is not your fault, it's like that animals can not talk, they simply do not have the ability for that.


Don't be snotty Canadabear...Thought Canadians are supposed to be well mannered and polite?

FEIB = Flat Earth Idea Believer

And again you made an assumption without any knowledge:
Yes Canadian are well mannered and polite, but I may live in Canada but I am not an Canadian. I am a German, and you may know what that means  ;D
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 05:28:01 PM
FEIB = Flat Earth Idea Believer

And again you made an assumption without any knowledge:
Yes Canadian are well mannered and polite, but I may live in Canada but I am not an Canadian. I am a German, and you may know what that means  ;D

That means I would never ride on a train with you.

As for your FEIB...Still trying to fruitlessly paint me in a corner I see...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: dutchy on May 24, 2017, 05:28:14 PM
Science is foccussing on irrelevant matters far to much. We should be doing everything possible to share earth's resources, which is totally in reach of our current technological abilities when the hearts of men would see it as their main obligation, the ''scientific'' confusion has clouded our ultimate purpose to live in peace, share and take care for all that lives in an increased ''civilised'' manner.

Science has focussed on figuring out how we came into existance, where we are in the greater sceme of things and where we are heading for.
The result of that specific ''science'' is humanity without a real unified identity, but a mere cosmic accident that has occurred in billion other places in the cosmos too!!
Providing technology that focusses on selfish temporarely needs that slaughter animals by the millions each day in the most abusive way thinkable (i am a vegetarian btw)
increasing the gap between high and low iq equiped specimen through an absurd system of financial rewards, ruining the planet/plane in record time and let technology infiltrate our very humanity in a way that makes us extremely dependent on things that makes us physically and psychologically weak, selfish, and nihilistic on all accounts.

Of course current science has become the antithesis of real human progress.
Globalisation, technology and science will kill us all in the end.
Millions of drifting economical refugees, droughts, new deseases, the collapse of ecological systems, wars, Cyberwarfare is what we can expect in the near future according to many knowledgable people.

But the ''sythesiser voiceman'' and main scientific outlet from ''Ingurland'' is hoping for a space colony ready for departure in the next 50 years when we let the inevitable destruction of earth and mankind happen.
Some scientists should be ''put to jail'' asap, because all their time, government funding and speeches are foccussed on cosmic hypothesis and acceptance of a destroyed earth, instead of trying to solve inequality, poverty, invironmetal problems and an agenda that also benefits the wretched of the earth once and for all.
Their cosmic ''wetdream'' has to stop and has to be redirected in much more fundamental achievements that benefit ALL instead of the happy few but wicked.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 05:32:33 PM
FEIB = Flat Earth Idea Believer
You are too polite! A better definition might be: "FEIB = Flat Earth Idiocy Believer".
Quote from: Canadabear
I am a German, and you may know what that means  ;D
Sure do! (and dare I say it?) :P Jawohl, Herr Kommandant!  :P
German precision ( :P and I hope sense of humour  :P) has been well respected for ages.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 05:48:47 PM
What a rant!!

That was a hell of a rant Dutchy...Though many things I agree with, a few I don't.

I have no problem with eating meat...But the animal cannot be miserable while alive or killed inhumanely. This is why I don't buy 1.99 per pound chicken from pilgrims pride...I buy 13 dollar a pound from a farm 70 miles from me, I have visited there, they damn near pet all the animals there. Completely free range and allowed to do what they do. Modern animal presses are disgusting, if that is all there was, I would be a vegi as well.

Although I agree with the wealth redistribution system being absurd (actually an understatement)...IQ is not the main factor...It may come into play a bit. The main thing is work ethics and drive.

Someone with a 200 iq is useless if they do nothing with it besides sit on their ass. I know many people, and friends with a few that are not that smart. However, they figured out they did one thing well, and we're smart enough to focus on that..Then they had the drive to exploit it, in return have done very well for themselves.

Of course, if someone has the drive AND the brains they will be a powerful double threat, but it is never just the IQ.

Other than that, well said.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: dutchy on May 24, 2017, 06:12:20 PM
What a rant!!

That was a hell of a rant Dutchy...Though many things I agree with, a few I don't.
You're wellcome to give your point of view....always in for some new understanding !
Quote
I have no problem with eating meat...But the animal cannot be miserable while alive or killed inhumanely. This is why I don't buy 1.99 per pound chicken from pilgrims pride...I buy 13 dollar a pound from a farm 70 miles from me, I have visited there, they damn near pet all the animals there. Completely free range and allowed to do what they do. Modern animal presses are disgusting, if that is all there was, I would be a vegi as well.
I agree completely. I have nothing against certain animal consumption, but the way the bio industry has taken cruelty to a whole new level.
I am vegetarian for ONLY half a year now after an undecover reportage in a slaughterhouse of pigs.
It was the first time my youngest doughter (13) heard me cry like a baby on the couch with my Ipad. What they did to pigs was so hurting for my soul it simply hit the bullseye of my heart. I don't judge anyone eating meat, but i simply could no longer participate in it.
Quote
Although I agree with the wealth redistribution system being absurd (actually an understatement)...IQ is not the main factor...It may come into play a bit. The main thing is work ethics and drive.
Someone with a 200 iq is useless if they do nothing with it besides sit on their ass. I know many people, and friends with a few that are not that smart. However, they figured out they did one thing well, and we're smart enough to focus on that..Then they had the drive to exploit it, in return have done very well for themselves.

Of course, if someone has the drive AND the brains they will be a powerful double threat, but it is never just the IQ.

Other than that, well said.
What i meant is that some people are just smart enough to work on the fields or operate very straightforward machines in a factory.
Robotica and  ICT is going to make those induviduals obsolete very fast.
There are always some poor countries that will do the fieldwork even cheaper and clever software programms and robots surpass the majority of office and factory workers in the near future.
Do those induviduals have any economical value left ???
I think in the current system, not much sadly.....time to reconsider human values i guess....
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 24, 2017, 07:58:39 PM
The story so far.....

(https://s18.postimg.org/kxfemdcl5/science.png)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 24, 2017, 08:16:49 PM

Of course, if someone has the drive AND the brains they will be a powerful double threat, but it is never just the IQ.


Threat to who?   

Anyway, we in the western world mostly live in an oligarchy not a meritocracy.     
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 09:33:44 PM
I have no problem with eating meat...But the animal cannot be miserable while alive or killed inhumanely.

And now explain how "killing humanely" works...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 24, 2017, 09:55:43 PM
I guess to die without pain or suffering. I'm not sure why its called 'humane' like there is a positive spin on the act of killing.

Have you seen those videos where they skin animals alive for their fur and then toss them away like garbage? Have you seen rabbits just getting their fur yanked off piece by piece? Or where they boil kittens alive? Or how about the 'halal' slaughter houses where the cows are tied up, witness the death of other animals in front of them and are essentially hacked with a blunt knife?

If an animal lives a happy care free life, fed and looked after well and then goes to sleep one day and never wakes up. That's my ideal way to treat an animal you would consume. Certainly the end product is healthier for your own body then one from an animal which has been abused, sick and died in a painful, horrific manner.

However, even those companies that look after the animals you consume, are still involved in the pointless and horrible slaughter of the males upon birth and your continued purchasing of their products, supports an industry that kills many millions each year.

Also science can not be a religion. Religion is about faith - and for many, happy to live in a state of perpetual ignorance about the universe around them. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge. No agenda and no politics. Simply finding the truth - whatever it is. I guess you could be a science 'zealot' of sorts but the terms are at polar opposites.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 10:12:05 PM
I mostly agree, but
If an animal lives a happy care free life, fed and looked after well and then goes to sleep one day and never wakes up. That's my ideal way to treat an animal you would consume.
I do not think personal preference (eating meat) suffices to justify killing a happy animal.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 24, 2017, 10:16:45 PM
Well, it can thank its very existence at all because we placed a value on its meat.

Then of course you see how much the western world wastes food and it really is a crying shame anything had to be put to death at all.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 10:18:40 PM
Well, it can thank its very existence at all because we placed a value on its meat.
And then again, if we started to breed human slaves, children for pedophiles etc, would that be okay because their very existance is because we placed value on their (place anything here)?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 24, 2017, 10:53:02 PM
Nope. Some humans have the ability to draw a line somewhere. Others (perhaps yourself) have trouble drawing a distinction

Are you seriously having guilt about being on top of the food chain? No one here advocates treating lesser animal lives like shit.

Where the actual f#&k do you draw the line?

This was once 'alive' too

(https://www.happycow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/VeganSlaughterhouse-mini.jpg)

In fact, every fruit and vegetable you have eaten was once 'alive' until you picked it. Get over it. You are alive today because every day, something has died to sustain you.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 25, 2017, 12:35:31 AM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 25, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.

Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.
Exactly what is the problem with that explaination?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.
I'm got to tell you that "this aspect of your model" does work perfectly thank you. Your not understanding it changes nothing.

And, I am afraid that you can't blame Space Science for that!
The first to measure that tilt was Erastosthanes way back in around 200 BC!
You know that bloke that first measured the circumference of the earth quite accurately, Are you going to blame "space science" for that too.

If you think that this is not the explanation of the seasons, please give your explanation.
Just remember that on the usual flat earth model: There are a lot more details, but we'll leave them till later.
I'll await your rep,y.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Zammo on May 25, 2017, 01:47:53 AM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

Look up Stellar Parallax. Rather than wallowing in ignorance, try and educate yourself.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 25, 2017, 03:17:58 AM
I don't have the faith to beleve that.

Well then it's a good thing you don't need faith, just a basic understanding of astronomy and spatial awareness.


Because I had 5 minutes and I was bored:
(http://i.imgur.com/WbNWLCk.png)

http://sciencing.com/causes-day-night-cycle-earth-15684.html

It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

I also like to get from you an explanation why you think it is impossible.

You made a claim where you base your whole believe on, now you have to show evidence for that claim otherwise you will have to admit that you base you view of the shape of the earth only on you believe not on evidence.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: beforeitstoolate on May 25, 2017, 04:07:44 AM
It sure seems like it but thats because we cant go against it. you have to be able to do the research the experiments, and get the grants. to do this you need schooling, money and support. we have to take their word for it just like people back in the day took the word of the priest before bibles were translated to the language of the commoner.

Just looking at the way people view Bill Nye is hilarious.The dude talks about stuff like thats his specific field of study  ??? 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 25, 2017, 04:26:00 AM
...
Just looking at the way people view Bill Nye is hilarious.The dude talks about stuff like thats his specific field of study 

speeking of field of study, all of the Flat Earth Idea Believers than have to shut up, because they did not study astronomy.
most of them do not even have a little bit knowledge about basic physics.

if you will only accept what people say that studied that field of science, ask Tyson Degrasse Neil.
look up what he has to say about flat earth.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 25, 2017, 06:15:33 AM
Nope. Some humans have the ability to draw a line somewhere. Others (perhaps yourself) have trouble drawing a distinction.
Looks like I found a raw point...


This was once 'alive' too

(https://www.happycow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/VeganSlaughterhouse-mini.jpg)

In fact, every fruit and vegetable you have eaten was once 'alive' until you picked it. Get over it.
Not sure how deep you're into biology, but I guess you are aware of nerves and such basic stuff. So don't make yourself look like a clown.

Are you seriously having guilt about being on top of the food chain? No one here advocates treating lesser animal lives like shit.
Isn't that exactely whats happening? Isnt killing something "treating it like shit"?
The 'on top of the food chain' argument is as dumb as you can get with argumentation...fuck everything and everyone, we're on top of the food chain so we can and should do as we want...right?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should or that it is allright.

You are alive today because every day, something has died to sustain you.
So what? How is that even an argument?

Where the actual f#&k do you draw the line?
I'm not vegan myself because of multiple reasons. But at least I'm not as delusional and ignorant to tell myself it would not be better if I was vegan...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 25, 2017, 02:25:50 PM
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat? Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.

I find the animal industry needlessly barbaric myself and needs to change. Thankfully, shit like battery caged hens are being phased out here. I also think there is too much of a focus on animal consumption and so much beautiful rainforest has been lost to animal husbandry. The human race and indeed the planet would do much better to focus more on a vegetable heavy diet sure.

But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.

Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 25, 2017, 03:54:07 PM
It is impossible for  our so called poles    to tilt respectively regarding the seasons and length of day and temperture differences  towards the sun  as described in the link above yet still remain inline with the stars that are above our alleged poles and for the orientation of the other stars that are all at different distances not to be effected by this as we orbit the sun.

Actually it works quite fine. If you think otherwise you're going to need to give some.... *gulp*.... evidence.

It takes faith and religion to believe the  impossible or stupidity and nievity.

This space science is a religion because this aspect of your model doesn't work.

Lol "space science".
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 25, 2017, 06:44:41 PM
This thread started out with the post:
All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/australia/brisbane)".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 25, 2017, 11:02:37 PM
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?
So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.


Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.
Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.

But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.
How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Why/how am I a hypocrite "keyboard warrior"?

Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.
Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
Also it's bad to take "best case scenario" which occurs in probably <0.01% of all cases to defend everything else.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 25, 2017, 11:49:39 PM
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?
So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.

So where do you stand on the issue then. On one hand you say the human race are essentially arseholes by the way we treat other animals, but then you have no problem then supporting the industry when it comes to feeding a growing newborn baby or your pet dog and cat. Maybe we just have to be arseholes to survive?


Or how about the Inuit who slaughter whales because in places like Greenland, it is literally one of the only sources of food for the humans throughout the winter. I oppose the Japanese travelling all the way to the Antarctic to slaughter whales because it is not necessary, but for some people, their survival depends on it.
Didn't know you're an inuit that relys on that meat. My bad then.

I'm not an Inuit but I wouldn't support vegans pushing their ideology onto a culture and people that would starve to death following their way. Not everybody on Earth is blessed with living in a 1st world country with plentiful farming land. I refuse to call people like them who are trying to survive an 'arsehole' for killing a wild animal for instance, however I would gladly call the Japanese whalers arseholes because they do not kill for survival.


But to take a moral high ground that even the best treated animal that ends up slaughtered in a painless and stressless way is barbaric and treating it like shit is ludicrous, absurd and the height of hypocrisy demonstrating you are just a 'keyboard warrior'.
How is any slaugthering justified by what happened before it? How is that an argument?
Why/how am I a hypocrite "keyboard warrior"?

Because on one hand, you eat meat/animal products, and on the other, push a twisted ideology that no matter how well an animal would be treated, there is no justification to kill it for food. If you want to push a left wing SJW narrative, at least follow the script.


Also Veganism takes their philosophy to the extreme where any product coming from an animal is shunned. So the guy who has some backyard chickens that looks after them well and caters to their every desire but eats their unfertilised eggs (essentially chicken periods lol) is a cruel bastard. They do not even allow a symbiotic relationship with animals.
Egg-producing industry has way more issues, I don't think a vegan would have a problem with your described scenario.
Also it's bad to take "best case scenario" which occurs in probably <0.01% of all cases to defend everything else.

Actually, veganism does have a huge problem with this and certainly wont eat it. They will not touch it. Groups like PETA would still say it is cruel.

It's because these '<0.01%' of cases that the industry is starting to change. People are demanding the industry change to better treat the animals in our care. Most people are not sadistic bastards that wish a painful and cruel life/end of life for animals. Most are ignorant to what goes on in the industry sure, and we can certainly do with eating far less meat than we do. But get over your guilt trip that we are on top of the food chain and eat animals as a means to survival. We have the capacity for empathy. If you have it, you are hardly an arsehole. Certainly the animal does not care if it had the chance to eat you whether you die slowly or not. Humans are omnivorous. Certainly we can survive on a plant only diet but if you wish the best of health, you need to have a balanced diet which includes animal products. You may have a high pedestal you can look down on us all and condemn us for it but it is what it is. We are on the top of the food chain. Don't cry about it.

If you had any credibility about the sentiments you have expressed in this thread you would denounce the eating and participation of anything to do with the animal food/clothing industry. You cant have it both ways. (unless you are 2 faced)  :) :(


Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 26, 2017, 12:27:55 AM
I suppose you support parents putting their newborn babies on a vegan diet? Or pet owners forcing their vegan ideals onto their dog or cat?
So, instead of actual arguments you now throw around wild allegations?
And no, I obviously don't support either of those points.

So where do you stand on the issue then.
Get a pet-rabbit... ;)
Anyway, you can't compare dogs/cats with humans, because dogs/cats are, unlike humans, carnivores and thus need meat whereas humans don't.
On the baby-issue: I do not think there is enough research on that matter and thus I find a vegan diet irresponsible.

I'm not an Inuit but I wouldn't support vegans pushing their ideology onto a culture and people that would starve to death following their way. Not everybody on Earth is blessed with living in a 1st world country with plentiful farming land. I refuse to call people like them who are trying to survive an 'arsehole' for killing a wild animal for instance, however I would gladly call the Japanese whalers arseholes because they do not kill for survival.
Thing is: Me and you, we do not need to eat meat for survival.
Also I do not think vegans would blame inuits for eating meat to survive, and if so, I'd think they're stupid idiots.

Because on one hand, you eat meat/animal products, and on the other, push a twisted ideology that no matter how well an animal would be treated, there is no justification to kill it for food. If you want to push a left wing SJW narrative, at least follow the script.
I don't eat meat but I'm not vegan either. I have multiple reasons not to be vegan, (at least one of them being egoistic) but I think vegans deserve respect and everyone that is not vegan, should at least be aware of what it means and causes to eat meat and animal products.

We have the capacity for empathy. If you have it, you are hardly an arsehole.
That's a bad argument. Just because you have empathy doesn't make you a good person in any way. If a rapist feels bad afterwards and has empathy for his victim he is still an asshole.

Actually, veganism does have a huge problem with this [eggs] and certainly wont eat it. They will not touch it. Groups like PETA would still say it is cruel.
As far as I know their problem with eggs is that male chickens get killed after birth because they are "useless", plus the henns have generally very low amount of space (even when they're biological eggs).

Humans are omnivorous. Certainly we can survive on a plant only diet but if you wish the best of health, you need to have a balanced diet which includes animal products.
I suggest you look into the science of whether we are, from an anotomy perspective, omnivores or herbivorers.
Also I suggest reading into vegan/meat/cancer/arteriosclerosis correlations etc.
I though would say that there are not enough (or hardly any at all) studies about long term effects of a vegan diet (which is one of the reasons I'm not vegan).
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 26, 2017, 01:18:58 AM
Humans are definitely not herbivores only. Way back in the day before civilisation how would we have survived?

And well cancer comes from over consumption of meats, especially processed meats full of sodium nitrate and meat that is overcooked and washed down with alcohol or soda. There is nothing unhealthy about incorporating a little meat or dairy like eggs and cheese etc in your diet. I am guessing that a lack of fibre is also bad when consuming meats...

We don't have a short intestinal tract like a lot of carnivores, so when you do have meat inside your gut, you don't want it hanging around decomposing longer than it needs.

Males are killed not only in chickens but in cows and pigs and I assume other species as well. Must be that male privilege we are bombarded with (well given the life of a battery hen etc perhaps it is a privilege).

If you see a piece of meat on the table and you acknowledge the sacrifice the animal(s) (involuntarily) made and you do not waste it, it is far less sadistic than a guy who may think 'sucked in' and toss half of it in the garbage bin.

A rapist 'feeling sorry' for his crime does not make the crime less offensive. (it may make his integration back into society, more safe for society). Now you want to compare eating animal food to hideous crimes and abuse of another human? Like it or not, humans place a higher value on humans than they do of lesser animals. (shame in some cases - when some punk tortures animals for fun it would be nice for him to have to bend over for the soap in jail)

Would you rather buy an animal product that came from a farmer who cared about the welfare of his animals throughout their life? Or buy one from someone who abused the shit out of them and made them suffer a horrible death needlessly.... The end outcome is the same (death), but which one is more palatable for you to support?

Society needs to change its standards and eating habits no question. Just that we can still eat meat and not be arseholes about it. Remember, there are now 7 billion people to feed. You cant expect they all turn vegan/vegetarian. Animals will still be bred and slaughtered for our survival.


Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 01:44:29 PM
This thread started out with the post:
All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/australia/brisbane)".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.

quote author=rabinoz link=topic=70710.msg1913407#msg1913407 date=1495763081]
This thread started out with the post:
All we know is what we are shown.

I think some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion.

We all obviously know that science works because we put fuel in our car and it moves
 or we apply heat to water and it boils.

When a scientist says that two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away that requires a huge amount of faith, to believe that he/she is telling the truth; as there is no way for most people to verify their observation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is Science the new religion ?
Yes, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion", but how many of those aspects really affect our own lives.

A test I give is whether it is consistent with what I can observe and with what I know already.
Some things, like "two black holes have collided one hundred thousand light years away" might not be inconsistent, but I have no way of proving or disproving it.
My reaction here is to "file it away under interesting", but since it has no effect on my life, leave it at that.

Other things, and I include the shape of the earth, do have more effect on how I think of the world and interpret my surroundings.
When it comes to  the shape of the earth, it does affect how I  see things, so I ask myself whether the shape I believe fits with my own personal observations, without my having to make up outlandish explanations.

So far, my personal observations might not prove that the earth is a Globe with a distant sun, but they are quite consistent with that.
Now there is a tremendous lot more evidence that I cannot personally verify. Much of that evidence comes from astronomy.
Now I am not even an amateur astronomer, but there are thousands of amateur astronomers all over the earth and they write of their findings and those would simply be meaningless on a flat earth.

But there are some simple aspects of astronomy, such as the movement and appearance of the sun, moon and closer planets that we can easily observe. Now we might no make measurements of our own, but we can all see simple things like sunrise and sunset times and even directions. And even things like observing that at present the planet Jupiter shows very brightly around 9 pm.
This looks about right according to "Time and Date, Astronomy, night Australia, Brisbane (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/australia/brisbane)".

In other words, what I observe fits the Globe model and does not fit any flat earth model.

So, I do not agree that "All we know is what we are shown." We can observe a lot ourselves, and see if is consistent with what we are told.
Though,  as I said before, "some aspects of science require a great deal of faith just like a religion" and it is up to you what you do there.
But, to ridicule anything that you cannot understand is childish behaviour.
[/quote]






That's not a bad argument trouble is the globe model does not fit with what can be observed I have never seen any curvature.

There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon and we are told that it must be a superior mirage or refraction.

If the sun was 92 million miles away it wouldn't change size during the alleged rotatation of the earth.
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.



Most sceptics are ordinary people who look at the alternative models in the little spare time they have so it is hardly surprising that they don't have all the answers on there favoured model as the heliocentric's do .

It all comes down to what you want to believe personally it wouldn't bother me if someone believed the earth was  square shaped which leads to the deeper and darker question of why are people so bothered what other people choose to believe which just gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Copper Knickers on May 26, 2017, 02:12:48 PM
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.

Are you sure about this?

It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

Are you sure about this?

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

Are you sure about this?

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.

I suggest you properly research the things you've claimed above. Then come back and reconsider this statement.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 26, 2017, 02:20:53 PM
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.

Are you sure about this?

It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.

Are you sure about this?

It is obvious I'm no astrologer but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.

Are you sure about this?

So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.

I suggest you properly research the things you've claimed above. Then come back and reconsider this statement.

No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Dog on May 26, 2017, 02:27:00 PM
I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider

And there we have it. Why post endless inane nonsense then?

"I'm certain that salmon are actually russian spies......... DON'T TRY TO EDUCATE ME I KNOW THE TRUTH."
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 05:07:18 PM
Episode #1 of 5
[That's not a bad argument trouble is the globe model does not fit with what can be observed I have never seen any curvature.
Sorry, what you mean is "the globe model does not fit with what" Resistance.is.Futile and other flat earthers interpret from what "can be observed".

You say "I have never seen any curvature", but that means nothing - look further! Here's a couple of videos

Flat Earth Curved Water Found 3 - Overwhelming Evidence, Soundly
There are a number of others in that series that explain the details, I'll just link to those - they get a bit tedious:
Pier 1 On The Way To The Causeway, Soundly (http://) and Flat Earth Curved Water Found 2. Soundly (http://)
The rest will show if you look at those.
But there is not any curvature to be seen horizontally along the horizon, and that is exactly how it should be.

If you make a thread on "Show me the curvature." I can add plenty of other cases.

But flat earthers also use the argument.
"The earth is flat, therefore space flight is impossible. Therefore all evidence from space is fake."
The looks a very circular argument to me. Surely any evidence from any source should be examined and tested for consistency.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 05:47:18 PM
Episode #2 of 5
There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon and we are told that it must be a superior mirage or refraction.
Please show your "many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon" with distance and height of the camera.

And there are many pictures that show things hidden. Even that video above showed the power lines starting to dip below the horizon.

But, one reason that "There are many real pictures of landmarks that should be beyond the horizon" is simply because it is a relatively rare and so hits the news. But buildings do disappear most of the time:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Toronto_seen_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott_2.JPG)
Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 18th July EST, by Ad Meskens
That photo are 64.5 km away but I can find no indication of the height of the camera above the water - and it matters a lot.
So many flat earthers simply work out the "amount hidden" using the "8" per mile squared formula", but this makes no allowance for the viewer's heightL
For example for a distance of 64.5 km and a viewing height of
          zero the "amount hidden" would be 326 m with no refraction and 280 m with "standard refraction,
          5 m the "amount hidden" would be 251 m, with no refraction and 210 m with "standard refraction,
          10 m the "amount hidden" would be 222 m, with no refraction and 184 m with "standard refraction,

More in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions - FE to RE and RE to FE (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70229.msg1896502;topicseen#msg1896502)
And if you don't like buildings, you can see a 14,410 ft mountain partly hidden in
Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train« on: March 30, 2017, 10:10:57 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69859.msg1888914#msg1888914)
Just face it, things get hidden behind the curve of the earth, and not due to perspective and
also face it, refraction, looming and mirages are all real and there are plenty of extreme cases if you want to see them.
Here is a small mirage:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2zfgpqc273tesz/20160614%20-%20%20Red%20Ship%20Boats%20Prove%20No%20Curvature%20-%20Earth%20is%20Flat.jpg?dl=1)
The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean!
Note how the superstructure and hull are reflected, making the ship appear to float. The true water level is at the line of the reflection.

And how do you like a  :o "flying boat"?  :o
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
Even I can recognise a  ;D Flying Boat  ;D when I see one.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 06:13:04 PM
Episode #3 of 5
If the sun was 92 million miles away it wouldn't change size during the alleged rotatation of the earth.
The sun does change size from the alleged sunrise to midday to sunset this is something anyone can observe.
It also looks much larger from 40000 ft if it was 92 million miles away a few miles closer would not make any difference.
No, you are completely incorrect there. When the sun is very bright and overhead, most of the apparent size is simply "glare". 
Have a look at this video to see the difference a proper filter makes:

Nikon P900 with Orion Solar Filter - seeing the true size of the Sun correctly. Wolfie6020.
(http://)
Here a few photos of the sun, I did not take them, they were taken be an "avid flat-earther" and posted on YouTube.
And the statement "the sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" is his, not mine
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgo9jn039gitosj/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)  (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5uz5udkvnj8rxd4/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)  (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xsvlg3ot95fmmf6/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)  (https://www.dropbox.com/s/641s6jyn4mdv9f9/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)  (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxfxxibtutm20k3/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom.jpg?dl=1)
The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - and then only a little in height!
The size of the sun does not get larger as it moves closer to us.

I have taken numerous photos and all show the moon at almost the same size. It must be realised that the apparent size of the moon does change significantly during the month as the moon's orbit is elliptical.

The following photos show the moon at quite different altitudes and different days:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc7fzmu0wkihken/1%20-%2020160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%206.3deg%20Az%20107.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST
Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°,  size  0.52°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ws9n0fu8n6oovcc/2%20-%2020160524%2020.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2014.5deg%20Az%20103.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST
Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°,  size  0.52°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ak5kitli48uvq8a/3%20-%2020160524%2020.57%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2023.1deg%20Az%20%2099.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST
Alt 23.1°, Az  99.6°,  size  0.52°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ftubx50otw1fvw5/4%20-%2020160525%2006.46%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2026.5deg%20Az%20%20262.1deg%20%20size%20%200.50deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST
Alt 26.5°, Az  262.1°,  size  0.50°

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/623ac3d252yu5qa/5%20-%2020160524%2022.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2037.8deg%20Az%20%2092.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST
Alt 37.8°, Az  92.7°,  size  0.52°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/38tz2dkno9tq10u/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12  EAST
Day after Strawberry Moon
at Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/t6bpqw0n0xpmgsh/7%20-%2020160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST
Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52°
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/27roefdgd2ogld0/8%20-%2020160620%2023.38%20-%20Strawberry%20Full%20Moon%20-%20at%20Alt%2080.2deg%20Azm%2023.4deg%20%20size%20%200.52xdeg%20at%20-%201600mm.jpg?dl=1)
(8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST
Strawberry Full Moon
at Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size  0.52x°

The moon stays (almost) the same size from rising (well 6.3°) to virtually overhead (at an Altitude of 80.2°).
The size of the moon does not get (noticeably) larger as it moves closer to us.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 06:15:56 PM
Episode #4 of 5
It is obvious I'm no astrologer astronomer (big difference) but when I have looked I see most of the same stars rotating all year round which is impossible on the heliocentric model.
In the northern hemisphere, you will see the stars in the north all year around, though, except for Polaris, their positions change,
but stars nearer the equator (further south for you) do not appear all year around.

That is an easily proven fact and was recognised by the Babylonian astrologers when they labelled the constellations that form the Zodiac marhing the months (sort of!).

That sure was a short episode!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 06:19:43 PM
Episode #5 of 5
So it is infact the heliocentric model that doesn't fit reality and our own observations.
No, it is in fact your misunderstanding of the heliocentric model that doesn't fit your own observations.

Most sceptics are ordinary people who look at the alternative models in the little spare time they have so it is hardly surprising that they don't have all the answers on there favoured model as the heliocentric's do .

It all comes down to what you want to believe personally it wouldn't bother me if someone believed the earth was  square shaped which leads to the deeper and darker question of why are people so bothered what other people choose to believe which just gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.
Yes, "It all comes down to what you want to believe personally", but the earth is a certain shape and neither your nor my belief can change that.

But, there are probably millions in professions and doing jobs that would be quite different if the earth were flat.
Obvious examples are international airline route planners and pilots.
They must know the correct distances to calculate correct fuel loads,
and distances on the usual flat earth map are quite different from those on the Globe, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where I am.

I made a post about those that must know the "true shape" of the earth:
Flat Earth General / Re: Why would the Government(s) lie about the shape of the earth? « Message by rabinoz on May 19, 2017, 09:39:20 AM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70594.msg1911284;topicseen#msg1911284)

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 26, 2017, 07:00:11 PM
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.
That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.
They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.
And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,
you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.
It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:
The earth is Flat!
So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgk7p91e4nr7wg7/Flat%20Earth%20Ice-wall%20map.png?dl=1)
FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1)
FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP
   
(http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth
Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1)
Map Southern Hemiplane
   
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1)
Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map
All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

And is "gravity" caused by: You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."
I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on May 27, 2017, 04:03:57 AM
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.
That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.
They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.
And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,
you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.
It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:
The earth is Flat!
So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg)
FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png)
FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP
   
(http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth
Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane_zpsbbjawftx.png)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane_zpsgjjzrxi4.png)
Map Southern Hemiplane
   
(https://i.imgsafe.org/c943d47b7b.png)
;D ;D İntikam's, "New Map Suggest"  ;D ;D
All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

And is "gravity" caused by:
  • Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
  • Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
  • Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
  • Simple density as many seem to claim,
  • Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
  • Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
  • İntikam's "atmosphere push".
  • And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.
You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."
I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.

The point I'm making is why should we dismiss our own observations and take the word of someone else ?

One of your colleagues was implying my observations where incorrect when they are not anyone can check that for themselves.

The flght paths don't make sense on the heliocentric modelthey seem to go the long way round.
 We are then told that there is not the financial insentive  for direct flights which is possible but hard to believe.

When you look at the flight path software planes just dissappear in the southern hemisphere .
When we look at all the contradictions regarding the southern hemisphere it is obvious something is  "up" with their heliocentric model.

Just because your model doesn't reflect reality or observation anyone that notices this must have a fully working flat model ?

Why must someone that noticed your model doesn't work have to have a fully working flat model ?

Why are you and your colleague's bothered what shape other people think the earth is this attitude on a flat earth forum gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 27, 2017, 05:35:19 PM
No....I'm already sure I have no need to reconsider let the people decide for themselves their own observations will determine the truth from a lie.
That is what bugs me so much with so many flat earthers.
They claim to know "THE TRUTH" and claim that everybody else is lying to them.
And I have been accused of being a liar and a deceiver for simply giving evidence that
         the earth is a Globe and has always been a Globe,
         that the Globe has been the accepted shape of the earth for a couple of millennia and
         no-one has come up with credible evidence that it is not a Globe.
And it is worse than that,
you claim that the earth is not a Globe, yet, you do not have any credible alternate model.
It seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Flat earthers cannot decide even on the basic continental layout of the earth, all they seem to agree on is:
The earth is Flat!
So, does the continental layout of your flat earth look like any of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg)
FE Ice Wall Map - North Pole centred AEP
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png)
FE Bipolar Map - (0°, 0°) centred AEP
   
(http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg)
1893 map by Orlando Ferguson.
Credit: Don Homuth
Or maybe your flat earth looks like one of these?
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane_zpsbbjawftx.png)
Map Northern Hemiplane, DET
   
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Maps/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane_zpsgjjzrxi4.png)
Map Southern Hemiplane
   
(https://i.imgsafe.org/c943d47b7b.png)
;D ;D İntikam's, "New Map Suggest"  ;D ;D
All of these maps are proposed by various quite active flat earthers.

And is "gravity" caused by:
  • Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, as suggested by John Davis in his "Infinite Flat Earth",
  • Universal Acceleration, as many here and especially in TFES.org seem to insist,
  • Denpressure, as asserted by sceptimatic,
  • Simple density as many seem to claim,
  • Aether push or dextro-rotary quarks or something from Sandokhan,
  • Another sort of aether explanation from JRoweskeptic or maybe even
  • İntikam's "atmosphere push".
  • And some say simply that "Things have a propensity to fall down.
You say "Earth is flat. No amount of lies will change the mind of those who have realized the truth."
Which of the almost unlimited possible flat-earths is "the truth."
I venture to claim that you have not the faintest idea!

So until flat earthers can come up with some answers they should stop claiming that most people on earth are either lying or deceived.

The point I'm making is why should we dismiss our own observations and take the word of someone else ?

One of your colleagues was implying my observations where incorrect when they are not anyone can check that for themselves.

The flght paths don't make sense on the heliocentric modelthey seem to go the long way round.
 We are then told that there is not the financial insentive  for direct flights which is possible but hard to believe.

When you look at the flight path software planes just dissappear in the southern hemisphere .
When we look at all the contradictions regarding the southern hemisphere it is obvious something is  "up" with their heliocentric model.

Just because your model doesn't reflect reality or observation anyone that notices this must have a fully working flat model ?

Why must someone that noticed your model doesn't work have to have a fully working flat model ?

Why are you and your colleague's bothered what shape other people think the earth is this attitude on a flat earth forum gives ammunition to the alleged conspiracy.

You refuse to learn astronomic to see how the solar system works and you can not explain how the Flat Earth Idea works.

The only thing you do is repeating that a helicentric system does not work without any explanation.

As long you can not show any evidence that supports your claims your posts are absolut useless.

 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Username on May 27, 2017, 06:37:36 PM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 27, 2017, 08:15:38 PM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion.

Thank you for sharing.

Quote
Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed)

Please do.

Quote
its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

Please elaborate.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 27, 2017, 11:48:33 PM
Humans are definitely not herbivores only. Way back in the day before civilisation how would we have survived?
As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).

And well cancer comes from over consumption of meats, especially processed meats full of sodium nitrate and meat that is overcooked and washed down with alcohol or soda. There is nothing unhealthy about incorporating a little meat or dairy like eggs and cheese etc in your diet.
Have you studies to proof those claims?

If you see a piece of meat on the table and you acknowledge the sacrifice the animal(s) (involuntarily) made and you do not waste it, it is far less sadistic than a guy who may think 'sucked in' and toss half of it in the garbage bin.
That was my point. You don't have to be vegan/vegetarien, but at least be aware of what it causes (and treat food respectfully).

Like it or not, humans place a higher value on humans than they do of lesser animals.
Thanks, captain.

Would you rather buy an animal product that came from a farmer who cared about the welfare of his animals throughout their life? Or buy one from someone who abused the shit out of them and made them suffer a horrible death needlessly.... The end outcome is the same (death), but which one is more palatable for you to support?
Which is more palatable for you to support, a murderer that tortures his victim first, or one that takes his victim on a romantic dinner first?
No, seriously, of course it's better if the animals are at least treated "fair", but it still does not make it a good thing.
I personally think a lot of animal products (wool, milk, eggs,...) would not require animals to die or suffer a lot (which eating meat does by definition), but of course it would mean way higher prices.

Society needs to change its standards and eating habits no question. Just that we can still eat meat and not be arseholes about it. Remember, there are now 7 billion people to feed. You cant expect they all turn vegan/vegetarian. Animals will still be bred and slaughtered for our survival.
Obviously I don't expect that, but then again, if people ate at least fewer meat, there would also be more food available and lesser pollution (climate change).
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 12:10:28 AM

As far as I know humans were eating meat only every once in a while and the diet was mostly plant based. Nowdays it's like a 180° turn; lots of meat and a bit of everything else (at least where I live, I don't know about 3rd world countries).


From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.

If you look at different human societies food resources vary substantially. If you were an Inuit your diet was 100% meat. If you were in a hunter gatherer society generally your diet depended on what was available in your environment. The development of agriculture by and large shifted diet to plants instead of meat. If you were a peasant in 18th century Europe, when you were forbidden to hunt and only possessed a few cows and pigs, you ate bread and cheese all the week and had meat on the table only on special occasions.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on May 28, 2017, 01:26:24 AM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

Well there is doubt in my mind so that settles that one.
Well the name dark ages is a bit old hat coined in the 1930's and now felt to be very inaccurate as the ages in question were not dark! And it is now referred to by historians as the Early Middle Ages. I think this demonstrates your very antiquated view of history. Americans often find history difficult especially when dealing with times farther back than the 1900s, going as far back as the year 500, around the start of the Early MiddleAges is a big ask for those from the USA, and your comments give me 'no doubts in my mind' that this is indeed the case. If you want to know about early European history I suggest you come over to Europe and study it.

Science is science and religion is religion. What you are trying to do is like pretending oil is water because they are both liquid at room temperature.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 01:38:56 AM
From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.
But then again, lot's of meat eating animals/apes have a rather low developed brain (by our standards) and e.g. an elephant, (which is huuuuuge) has about 3 times as much neurons in his nervous system as we have. So it seems rather far-fetched to imply that our brain developement happened due to meat-eating?
I think it's more that we have developed one specific part (/few parts) of our brain (especially cerebral cortex) and not brain developement in general.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 01:52:44 AM
But then again, lot's of meat eating animals/apes have a rather low developed brain (by our standards) and e.g. an elephant, (which is huuuuuge) has about 3 times as much neurons in his nervous system as we have. So it seems rather far-fetched to imply that our brain developement happened due to meat-eating?

Well, obviously eating meat does not necessarily lead to bigger brains, nobody claims that. It just provides more energy in less time than eating plants. Also elephants are more than 3 times bigger than we, aren't they?

I think it's more that we have developed one specific part (/few parts) of our brain (especially cerebral cortex) and not brain developement in general.

Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2017, 01:56:18 AM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.
It seems strange that what you call the "dark ages" applies only to Europe, "The West", and even there it is a very inaccurate description.

But during the period from 500 to after 1000 AD, science, astronomy, geodesy and mathematics were very actively pursued.
Part of the reason for was that they were convinced that the earth was a Globe.
That did present certain difficulties for the Muslims' "Qibla . . . . the direction that should be faced when a Muslim prays during salah prayers. It is fixed as the direction of the Kaaba in Mecca."

This lead to studies in geodesy and associated instrument making, astronomy and mathematics.
Look at the works of:
The idea of a Globe certainly is there in the early Islamic astronomers. You flat earthers are certainly the "new boys on the block".
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 28, 2017, 01:58:06 AM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

I have to disagree with you to some extent - science is worse than religion!

Religion accepts the science that doesn't oppose it, but science totally rejects religion and faith.
God can't be measured or observed, so God does't exist to the scientific mind.
The same scientist never measured or observed love, but he for sure can't live without it, or deny its existence!

All holy books talked about the flood of Noah which covered the earth, but scientists simply denied that and called it a myth, regardless of all the fossils of sea fish found at high altitudes all over the world!

At 3000 m height, sea fish remains were found in the mountains in my country, all over the place, and in many other countries, as well > but, scientists deny that because it was simply mentioned in a 2000 year old book, supposedly from god!

Science is important in our lives and in shaping our future, but it is not the most important part of it!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 02:08:57 AM
Well, obviously eating meat does not necessarily lead to bigger brains, nobody claims that. It just provides more energy in less time than eating plants. Also elephants are more than 3 times bigger than we, aren't they?
So shouldn't they be 3 times as intelligent?
By the way; the limiting factor of human brain size is, as far as I know, thought to be birth because bigger brain = harder birth due to larger skull.

Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.
Do you have any sources for your claims?

Anyway, whether eating meat was evolutionary required/beneficial for brain developement isn't an argument pro/contra meat eating anyway, because obviously nowdays we do no longer have problems with our energy managment (actually we do have, but in the other direction; just look at obesity rates...).
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 02:56:50 AM
Well, obviously eating meat does not necessarily lead to bigger brains, nobody claims that. It just provides more energy in less time than eating plants. Also elephants are more than 3 times bigger than we, aren't they?
So shouldn't they be 3 times as intelligent?

No.

By the way; the limiting factor of human brain size is, as far as I know, thought to be birth because bigger brain = harder birth due to larger skull.

This and the limited amount of energy available. Who knows, if an even bigger brain would have had a really huge selective advantage, populations may have evolved with a broader female pelvis.

Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.
Do you have any sources for your claims?

It is not "my claim", it is a neurological fact. You can easily verify that.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Warning tl;dr!

Anyway, whether eating meat was evolutionary required/beneficial for brain developement isn't an argument pro/contra meat eating anyway, because obviously nowdays we do no longer have problems with our energy managment (actually we do have, but in the other direction; just look at obesity rates...).
All of your discussion seems to have been on energy requirements, but that has very little to do with the original need for meat,  or at least animal products in the diet.

The big issue is the protein requirements necessary for all animal life. Proteins are made from amino acids and there are 20 amino acids needed by humans for heath development, including brain growth.

Quote
Essential and Non-Essential Amino Acids
Any time you consume protein, your body receives a source of amino acids. Your body uses combinations of 20 distinct amino acids to make up the protein in your cells. Dietary amino acids fall into two categories: non-essential amino acids, which your body can produce on its own, and essential amino acids, which your body cannot produce and therefore requires as part of your diet. Sources of protein that contain every essential amino acid are called complete proteins, while sources of protein deficient in one or more essential amino acids are incomplete proteins. Failure to eat enough of any essential amino acid prevents your body from making the protein it needs to function, leading to tissue breakdown.
Intake Recommendations
The specific amount of protein you need each day depends on your weight and activity level. Most people can calculate their required protein intake by multiplying their weight by 0.4, according to the Iowa State University Extension. For example, the average 150-pound individual would require 60 grams of protein daily. If you’re an athlete or you have a very active lifestyle, you might require more protein, up to 1.8 grams per pound. A registered dietitian can help you determine an appropriate protein intake, as well as design a diet plan to help you meet this goal.
Sources of Protein
If you follow a well-balanced and varied diet, you likely consume protein from a range of sources. Eggs, meat, dairy products, soy products and quinoa all represent sources of complete protein, while beans, lentils, nuts and whole grains contain incomplete protein. Eating a combination of foods to meet your daily protein intake helps ensure you’ll consume enough of each essential amino acid, especially if you consume some sources of complete protein. Choose lean proteins to limit your consumption of fat, and eat fatty sources of protein in moderation. Plant-based sources of protein typically contain little fat, or contain unsaturated fats that benefit your health. Fatty meats, like red meat, or full-fat dairy products contain significant amounts of saturated fat, which increases your risk of cardiovascular disease. Limit your intake of red meat, instead opting for leaner meats, such as skinless chicken or turkey breast.

From Why Are Proteins & Amino Acids Important to Life? (http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/proteins-amino-acids-important-life-2153.html)
Energy requirements are easily ( :D too easily  :D) supplied by carbohydrates found in (over) abundance in cereals, fruit and sugars.
And they are the big problem with modern diets, though excessive fats is right up there too.

Herbivore animals still need protein and mainly have to make it from grass and other vegetation. This is usually done by bacteria and fermentation in the gut.
Horses and their relatives have very ineffecient digestive systems and need to eat a great deal of grass, or a mixed artificial diet.

On the other hand ruminants (cows, sheep, goats and the like) have multiple chambers in their digestive system allowing them to re-chew their food (chew the cud) and pass it to another chamber for bacterial action and fermentation.
Carnivores of course, get their protein from meat sources, though many including bears are omnivores.
One strange animal is the panda bear. It is a true bear and has the short gut of a carnivore,  but lives on a very poor diet of almost entirely bamboo. As a result it must eat vast quantities to get sufficient nutrition.

Birds, like chickens, have a mixed diet including insects etc.

So animal products were certainly the easiest and most abundant source of protein and they provided all 20 amino acids necessary for life.

Now,  where does this leave the vegetarian of vegan?
Vegetarians commonly allow animal products such as dairy products and eggs.
Then there are certain, though not all, proteins in some plant products, such as legumes where nitrogen fixing bacteria in root nodules produce it, hence the popularity of soya products.

The vegan needs to be much more careful, but there are now ways of getting the required nutrients.

The critical nutrients are those 20 amino acids, which make up the various proteins and energy requirements are a minor matter.

As far as I have seen we would certainly be better off with less animal product in our diet and that would be better if it were the likes of fish and chicken and much less red meat.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 03:56:00 AM
No.
Exactely, that's my point. Seems like there is no (/very low) correlation between herbi/carnivore, animal size and intellectual capacities. So, saying that eating meat "triggered the evolution of the human brain" seems a rather weak hypothesis. I'm not denying that it might have been a factor, but my guess would be it wasn't the main one, rather a part of lot's of circumstancial events & random happenings.

It is not "my claim", it is a neurological fact. You can easily verify that.
I quickly googled and found no surces. I'd like to see sources for those claims:
From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.

Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061

Also intersting
Quote
In summary, vegetarians have consistently shown to have lower risks for cardiometabolic outcomes and some cancers across all three prospective cohorts of Adventists. Beyond meatless diets, further avoidance of eggs and dairy products may offer a mild additional benefit. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to provide some added protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes; and cardiovascular mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/


So animal products were certainly the easiest and most abundant source of protein and they provided all 20 amino acids necessary for life.
It rather is a balance between carnivore/herbivore animals; too much carnivore animals leads to fewer herbivores which then again leads to fewer carnivores because they don't have food, which means herbivore animal populations can regrow and so on. It's not like it always was that you enter a shop and have your meat prepared for you...
I'd even say long, long ago hunting (eating meat) was rather inefficient for humans, until we  discovered farming / making tools (which then would mean that we FIRST had important brain developement and THEN were able to eat more meat (which might helped further developement)).


Quote
As far as I have seen we would certainly be better off with less animal product in our diet and that would be better if it were the likes of fish and chicken and much less red meat.
I agree.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 04:59:21 AM
No.
Exactely, that's my point. Seems like there is no (/very low) correlation between herbi/carnivore, animal size and intellectual capacities. So, saying that eating meat "triggered the evolution of the human brain" seems a rather weak hypothesis. I'm not denying that it might have been a factor, but my guess would be it wasn't the main one, rather a part of lot's of circumstancial events & random happenings.
.

Actually there is a certain correlation between carnivoric behaviour and intelligence, but that is only because much intelligence is required for hunting. As I said, eating meat does not make you smarter, it just provides much energy. Selective pressure will determine for what that energy is used for. In the case of humans it was used to increase brain size.

It is not "my claim", it is a neurological fact. You can easily verify that.
I quickly googled and found no surces. I'd like to see sources for those claims:
From an evolutionary perspective, Hominids turned from a largely herbivore and fructivor habit as typical for primates (including the Australopithecines) to a hunting behaviour, and this is largely seen as having triggered the evolution of the human brain, because our brain needs much energy.

Yes, it is the growth of the cortex that is thought to have required a shift in our diet to proceed, because it is the part of our brain that needs so much energy.

Lurk moar.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 05:10:35 AM
Lurk moar.
So you don't want to provide sources.

"Actually there is a certain correlation between carnivoric behaviour and intelligence" again is something that needs a source.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 05:28:17 AM
Lurk moar.
So you don't want to provide sources.

"Actually there is a certain correlation between carnivoric behaviour and intelligence" again is something that needs a source.

Hunting animals are usually more intelligent than their prey. That is a very trivial fact. But hunting of course is not the only reason for selective pressure towards more intelligence. Primates for example are intelligent, because they have to master a difficult environment (trees).

I know that all because I am so smart. My source is my incredibly high developed brain, energized by all sorts of meat including crocodiles and monkeys.

Here in Malaysia we are llike this: when we are driving and an animal passes the street, we step on the gas, run over and cook it.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 05:40:41 AM
Hunting animals are usually more intelligent than their prey. That is a very trivial fact.
Hunting: Recognize pray, hunt it, kill it, eat it.
Eating plants: Recognize food, eat it.
I think the hunting and killing part needs mostly phyiscal strenght (which is what we see in nature and can be called a "trivial fact").
"Advanced" hunting can be helpful but so can be "advanced" plant-eating; you know like hide your food somewhere for later, "farming" (in primitive ways) etc.

Also intelligence from the hunter could aswell lead to higher intelligence of the hunted; you know, only the smarter animals survive (=not get eaten).
I don't see any "trivial fact" here.

Quote
I know that all because I am so smart. My source is my incredibly high developed brain, energized by all sorts of meat including crocodiles and monkeys.
Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)

Quote
Here in Malaysia we are llike this: when we are driving and an animal passes the street, we step on the gas, run over and cook it.
I wasn't expecting you to have shops to buy stuff in Malaysia anyway, so no big suprise here  ;D
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 28, 2017, 05:48:47 AM
There is no doubt in my mind, science is a religion. Not only can it be shown to advance from mystical experiences (and I can show this if needed), its social structure is identical in many respects to that in the dark ages.

I have to disagree with you to some extent - science is worse than religion!

Religion accepts the science that doesn't oppose it, but science totally rejects religion and faith.

That is incorrect.
For one religion does not even except religion.
And science rejects only claims that are not possible in reality and that do not fit to the physical laws.
Quote

God can't be measured or observed, so God does't exist to the scientific mind.
The same scientist never measured or observed love, but he for sure can't live without it, or deny its existence!

But religion claim stuff that happened because of as a natural cause (like evolution) as an act of God.
That is where science tells us how it really happened.
Quote

All holy books talked about the flood of Noah which covered the earth, but scientists simply denied that and called it a myth, regardless of all the fossils of sea fish found at high altitudes all over the world!

Scientific explained how fossils can be found at that places.
But please show me where in the viking religion is told about Noah and the floor, also where in the religion of the major?
Do the Hindus also have the floor story?

Quote

At 3000 m height, sea fish remains were found in the mountains in my country, all over the place, and in many other countries, as well > but, scientists deny that because it was simply mentioned in a 2000 year old book, supposedly from god!

Like I said it is completely explained in the fossile record.
Please explain why are the fossils exactly sorted in the layers of stones according to the evolution.
If all animals are existed at the same time why are the fossils are not also mixed thru the layers?
Quote

Science is important in our lives and in shaping our future, but it is not the most important part of it!
Yes science is important in our life, but if we would only live by the rules of a religion, nothing would be developed.
As example we would have no vaccination against viral infections.
Every infection would be declared a act of God or that the person had done a sin and got punished by God.

Therefore is religion the real bad thing.
See alone how many people got killed by religion
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 05:54:37 AM
Hunting animals are usually more intelligent than their prey. That is a very trivial fact.
Hunting: Recognize pray, hunt it, kill it, eat it.
Eating plants: Recognize food, eat it.
I think the hunting and killing part needs mostly phyiscal strenght (which is what we see in nature and can be called a "trivial fact").
"Advanced" hunting can be helpful but so can be "advanced" plant-eating; you know like hide your food somewhere for later, "farming" (in primitive ways) etc.

Also intelligence from the hunter could aswell lead to higher intelligence of the hunted; you know, only the smarter animals survive (=not get eaten).
I don't see any "trivial fact" here.

Well, for me it is trivial. For you it is something impossible to figure out. Humans differ from each other.

Quote
I know that all because I am so smart. My source is my incredibly high developed brain, energized by all sorts of meat including crocodiles and monkeys.
Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)

I don't think that you want to provide a source for this non-trivial claim...

Quote
Here in Malaysia we are llike this: when we are driving and an animal passes the street, we step on the gas, run over and cook it.
I wasn't expecting you to have shops to buy stuff in Malaysia anyway, so no big suprise here  ;D

We do, but they are all run by Chinese and they only sell ink paintings and unicorn powder. Stuff like that, you know.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 06:03:32 AM
Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)
I don't think that you want to provide a source for this non-trivial claim...
Nowdays sources are required for jokes? I think you're confusing things. Might be because you lack some vitamins, which you could get with eating more vegetables  ;) (<-- hint: watch for smileys to spot jokes)

Well, for me it is trivial. For you it is something impossible to figure out. Humans differ from each other.
So, you can't logically explain your "trivial" claims nor provide any evidence or studies.
Might be they're not as "trivial" as you think they are and you're just simple minded and thus not able to think things through, so everything to you seems "trivial"?  ::)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 06:14:39 AM
Well, might be you'd be able to see things more clearly and think further if you ate a bit fewer meat ;)
I don't think that you want to provide a source for this non-trivial claim...
Nowdays sources are required for jokes? I think you're confusing things. Might be because you lack some vitamins, which you could get with eating more vegetables  ;) (<-- hint: watch for smileys to spot jokes)

You mean like vitamin D most abundant in liver...wait, joke, right?

Well, for me it is trivial. For you it is something impossible to figure out. Humans differ from each other.
So, you can't logically explain your "trivial" claims nor provide any evidence or studies.
Might be they're not as "trivial" as you think they are and you're just simple minded and thus not able to think things through, so everything to you seems "trivial"?  ::)

Let me guess...not a joke?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 28, 2017, 06:17:43 AM
Let me guess...not a joke?
First part no, second part obviously yes.

You mean like vitamin D most abundant in liver...wait, joke, right?
What are you trying to tell me? I don't understand.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 06:23:21 AM
... I don't understand...

Jesus H. Christ.  ???
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2017, 03:23:11 PM
@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on May 28, 2017, 03:53:59 PM
There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on May 28, 2017, 07:17:29 PM
Where's the beef?!


I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on May 29, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
Where's the beef?!


I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!

 :D  I remember that TV commercial long time ago - I think it was an Hardee's ad with the short old lady looking for the beefburger in between the bun! It was very funny...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Rayzor on May 29, 2017, 02:53:57 AM
The vegetarians I know are almost like religious zealots.    I don't know a single one who doesn't take vitamin supplements.   

I can understand that society today  is structured in such a way as to remove us from our food sources,  how many city dwellers could go out and slaughter a sheep or cow, and then know how dress the meat.   Not many I'd suspect.

The sunday roast chicken,  had to have it's head chopped off and then plucked and cleaned.    Can't say I ever enjoyed doing it, it was just another chore,  like chopping firewood or raking leaves.

Sunday roast chicken with stuffing, onions and gravy,  crispy roast potatoes and  sweet home grown peas and beans.    Nothing better.

Vegans can shove their tofu.
 

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 07:06:33 PM
B12 is found in Comfrey.

Which isn't a food source if you believe in the tests designed to fail by the FDA ;D
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on May 30, 2017, 07:35:27 PM
B12 is found in Comfrey.

Which isn't a food source if you believe in the tests designed to fail by the FDA ;D
I think the whole point has been that a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet is now possible, but would have been quite impossible in most primitive societies.
This explains why meat and other sources of protein etc were so highly prized in those societies.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 07:40:15 PM
B12 is found in Comfrey.

Which isn't a food source if you believe in the tests designed to fail by the FDA ;D
I think the whole point has been that a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet is now possible, but would have been quite impossible in most primitive societies.
This explains why meat and other sources of protein etc were so highly prized in those societies.

Ahhh, I didn't read every post, much less in this page lol. I was just pointing that out. By the way can I get that list of 61 proof's you have in a PM? I tried sending you a PM but it didn't work? Idk..
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
Where's the beef?!


I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!

I would vomit if either touched my lips, they are both processed man made defilers of the body that aim to suppress your sex drive and make you a docile and dumb.

The ball earth is a cage, and we are its unwitting cows being milked of our spirituality. Wake up. Your CELL phones and interNET and WEB are all there to CATCH you and keep you entranced.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 31, 2017, 08:08:25 AM
The ball earth is a cage, and we are its unwitting cows being milked of our spirituality. Wake up. Your CELL phones and interNET and WEB are all there to CATCH you and keep you entranced.

Says the guy using the InterNET to reach this WEBsite. Are you also using a cell phone to do this so we can listen to your mooing?

Wake up!!!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 31, 2017, 08:11:42 AM
I'm not sure, but I think he was being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 08:14:36 AM
I am merely using their cages as a weapon.

You can tie a rope around my hands and drag me along, but beware, if you take a wrong step, I may pull back, and bash your skull in.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 31, 2017, 08:35:30 AM
Where's the beef?!


I'll take a Bacon Triple Cheeseburger over tofu any day!

I would vomit if either touched my lips, they are both processed man made defilers of the body that aim to suppress your sex drive and make you a docile and dumb.

The ball earth is a cage, and we are its unwitting cows being milked of our spirituality. Wake up. Your CELL phones and interNET and WEB are all there to CATCH you and keep you entranced.

sounds like your are vegan.
and with that comment you just proved that you get not enough nutrition to have a fully functional brain.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 12:36:22 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 31, 2017, 12:52:54 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 01:15:47 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...


Youre so shilly. I never claimed to be a vegan.

When I eat meat, I kill it myself.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 31, 2017, 01:16:48 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Badxtoss on May 31, 2017, 01:33:12 PM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 31, 2017, 01:39:23 PM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 02:43:01 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?

Dude, I cant even understand you.

Yes, science has become a religion. I cannot replicate claims about quantam physics, nor can I replicate a photo of the globe. I can however MAKE an image of the globe, in Blender, or by painting it.

And its indistinguishable from what NASA hocks on the public.

 I know this because I loaded my 3D fake globe onto my phone and went about asking if people could tell a difference between my photo and NASAs. Guess what, none could. Ill be posting videos soon.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Badxtoss on May 31, 2017, 03:40:56 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?

Dude, I cant even understand you.

Yes, science has become a religion. I cannot replicate claims about quantam physics, nor can I replicate a photo of the globe. I can however MAKE an image of the globe, in Blender, or by painting it.

And its indistinguishable from what NASA hocks on the public.

 I know this because I loaded my 3D fake globe onto my phone and went about asking if people could tell a difference between my photo and NASAs. Guess what, none could. Ill be posting videos soon.
You may not be able to replicate them but if you took the time to study such things you could.  You can go and talk to people who have done it.
Your being lazy or ignorant isn't proof you're right.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Badxtoss on May 31, 2017, 03:43:02 PM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
Exactly
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on May 31, 2017, 03:48:11 PM
And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...
Are that supposed to be arguments against veganism, or specifically against arealhumanbeing to show him how retarded he is?

Dude, I cant even understand you.

Yes, science has become a religion. I cannot replicate claims about quantam physics, nor can I replicate a photo of the globe. I can however MAKE an image of the globe, in Blender, or by painting it.

And its indistinguishable from what NASA hocks on the public.

 I know this because I loaded my 3D fake globe onto my phone and went about asking if people could tell a difference between my photo and NASAs. Guess what, none could. Ill be posting videos soon.

That does not prove that Nasa pictures are fake.
I really looking forward to see your video.

BTW: what about the videos from the It's can you also make them?

But you are still wrong as we explained to you, science is not a religion.
There are a lot of different religion but only one science.
Like with the flat earth idea.
There are a lot of different "models" of a flat earth, but only one model of a global earth.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: napoleon on June 01, 2017, 02:47:22 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 04:28:42 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.

if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.

i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.

BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 04:46:39 AM
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.

Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 05:06:12 AM
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.

Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.

the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 05:30:52 AM
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.

Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.

the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.

The vikings converted voluntarily (though after the kings had converted they also suppressed pagan opposition by force).

Regarding Native Americans, when you speak about the 16th/ 17th century, sure, it was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Either you became Christian or you were killed. Later genocides (like the wiping out of the Californian Indians) were not so much religiously motivated, it was more about killing off the natives, if they were Christians or not. Many of the Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears ( the Cherokees who had been allies of the US in every war!) were Christians.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 05:59:32 AM
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.

Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.

the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.

The vikings converted voluntarily (though after the kings had converted they also suppressed pagan opposition by force).

Regarding Native Americans, when you speak about the 16th/ 17th century, sure, it was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Either you became Christian or you were killed. Later genocides (like the wiping out of the Californian Indians) were not so much religiously motivated, it was more about killing off the natives, if they were Christians or not. Many of the Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears ( the Cherokees who had been allies of the US in every war!) were Christians.

but still their original religion got almost complete removed.
the original argument was that somebody claim that if all religions will be deleted, the abrahamic religion will come up again.
and i say that it will not happen because if God does exist, why are exist other religions, now and in the past.
you can not show one religion that evolved parallel to the abrahamic religions that has the same stories and history.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 06:20:05 AM
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.

Do you mean they killed the vikings or their gods? If you mean the former I have to object, because they remained very much vikings after their conversion; if you mean the latter, I can't say anything because I don't know much about spiritual warfare.

the religion got killed either by killing their believers or by forcing them to convert.
i think with the vikings was it more convertion and with north and south american believers it was more killing the believers themself.

The vikings converted voluntarily (though after the kings had converted they also suppressed pagan opposition by force).

Regarding Native Americans, when you speak about the 16th/ 17th century, sure, it was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Either you became Christian or you were killed. Later genocides (like the wiping out of the Californian Indians) were not so much religiously motivated, it was more about killing off the natives, if they were Christians or not. Many of the Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears ( the Cherokees who had been allies of the US in every war!) were Christians.

but still their original religion got almost complete removed.
the original argument was that somebody claim that if all religions will be deleted, the abrahamic religion will come up again.
and i say that it will not happen because if God does exist, why are exist other religions, now and in the past.
you can not show one religion that evolved parallel to the abrahamic religions that has the same stories and history.

One cannot deny that the Christian religion has a certain amount of appeal that ethnic religions can hardly compete with. Even in cases where no obvious force is applied, the latter have a great competitive disadvantage. That's easy to understand if one considers how strongly they depend on the traditional structure of their society. I can see that in the recent history of my own country: traditional religions can rarely adapt or reinterpret themselves fast enough to master the challenges of modernization - converting to a world religion is the easier way. It is somehow natural, though I regret the cultural loss, the loss of real knowledge and loss of plurality that goes along with this development.

I'm an atheist though and I certainly do not support napoleon's "original argument".
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 10:13:58 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.

if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.

i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.

BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.

if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.

i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.

BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

And you worship a shitty fictitious character who orders people to commit genocide in one of the most stupid books ever written.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 10:40:55 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.

if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.

i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.

BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

And you worship a shitty fictitious character who orders people to commit genocide in one of the most stupid books ever written.

And which book is that that orders people to commit genocide?

Are you from Thailand you FalseCharater - I'm having my doubts now if you are from Malaysia, as you claim!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 10:44:43 AM
Science is a religion and that's the end of it.

You can accept images that have been stitched together using other images as evidence.

You can accept calculations that support a hypothesis and be sure that's what will happen when no one as travelled at the speed of light  and no one ever will.

That takes a massive amount of faith.

I blame the movie industry and animation industry it has left some people not being able to tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.

I suggest some of the posters here look up the definition of verify if the so called science can't be verified properly (not by BS calculations) then it is a religion.

The official story is that the earth is an oblate spheroid why is it none of the Blue Marble CGI Images or the so called real photos of the earth confirm this ?

Thought I better let some of you know Santa doesn't live at the North Pole and he doesn't exist neither does the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny thought it's best you know the truth because from the state of some of the posts on this thread it would appear you believe absolutely anything.
No, science isn't a religion.  If you wipe all science and all religion from the world completely.  In a few thousand years science will be right back where it is today.  Religion could end up being anything

if you would "delete" the existing religions, there will be most likely come up new religions but only with very different contend.
as we can see with all the different religions that exist on the earth.

and yes science will come back wist the same conclusions because everything that science describes is already existing before the description.
you are now assuming that God doesn't exist.
you can perhaps "delete" the existing religions, but you cannot delete God. God would send another messanger, and you would get another Abrahamic religion very familiar with these.
you can delete science...and a few thousand years later we will most definitely NOT be where we are now...we would invent stuff in another order and develop in a different direction. That's because we wouldn't have the same inventers then. and different inventers means different kind of development no Newton, Einstein or Archimedes.
an example:
if we didn't invent the combustion motor in time...perhaps we would then develop elektromotors much further than they are today. maybe we wouldn't need any fossil fuel at all.

if god does exist, how do you explain the religions that are different than the abrahamic religions?
like the vikings that believed in Odin, Thor and others. it only do not exist anymore because the abrahamic religion people killed them.
the same with the believes of the northamerican indians or the southamerican maya.
what is with the buddist religion, they have a very different story than the abrahamic.

i was talking about the science of the real world, not inventions.
the evolution would be the same, the chemical science would be the same, also the physical science would be the same.

BTW. the electric motor was invented 1834 by Moritz Jacobi
the first gas motor was invented 1867 by Nikolaus August Otto

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

And you worship a shitty fictitious character who orders people to commit genocide in one of the most stupid books ever written.

And which book is that that orders people to commit genocide?

Are you from Thailand you FalseCharater - I'm having my doubts now if you are from Malaysia, as you claim!

You are right, I am a young Thai hustler. Does that turn you on?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 10:50:47 AM

You are right, I am a young Thai hustler. Does that turn you on?

Naaa - but maybe yes if you were from Syria!  :P  hahahaha...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 10:54:24 AM

You are right, I am a young Thai hustler. Does that turn you on?

Naaa - but maybe yes if you were from Syria!  :P  hahahaha...

I have no doubt about that.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 11:04:07 AM

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 11:31:48 AM

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

I know, as well as you know, that science is not a religion! But, in the rat-penis-vagina concept, some might consider science as the same!
And, what the hell is so magical about a rat, and what powers could one gain from worshiping it?

To me; religion is following the right path that will lead you to the creator, who sooner or later we shall join in His kingdom after this physical life.

They can choose to join the rat in the sewage if they wish, maybe there where they really belong, but certainly I don't wish to spend my afterlife in a shit hole!

Religion is a goal you set in your life and aim for reaching - you live a descent life; being honest with yourself and with others > certainly you shall reach high after death.
And if you aim for a shit hole > you certainly shall be dumped there!

You see; there are no complications in religion > science can confirm that, as well!
It's an easy equation - in fact, the easiest I was confronted with!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 01, 2017, 12:00:25 PM

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

That is what most hypothetical science is...a belief in a magic power.

We can't prove it, observe it, or replicate it as even the most basic scientific method will require. However, don't mind that, it happened as we said, it is FACT...anyone who calls us out for our hypocrisy or doesn't accept our false conclusion of the group think bubble, we will call ignorant/brain dead/barbarians etc etc.

You don't get any more "religion like" than that. At least I admit my beliefs are just that...a belief. I consider them a fact, however, I don't shit my pants and start belittling someone who does not agree with me.


 why are exist other religions, now and in the past.


It is human nature to make counterfeits. You have one real one, and a bunch of counterfeits, each production a little different than the other.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 01, 2017, 12:18:29 PM
And babybullshit again, throwing out his same verbal vomit that has been debunked and shown to be bullshit long ago.



Here, eat this
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 12:19:21 PM

In India they worship rats - can we call that a religion?
In Thailand they worship man's penis - can we call that a religion?
In some parts of Syria, they worship woman's vagina - maybe you'd like that as a religion!
And those that worship the Sun, the Moon and other heavenly planets - religion?
We have Satan's worshipers in every country - is that a worldwide religion?
Some worship money and others worship lust - so why not call that a religion!
And those who believe only in science... I believe this question has already been posted > so you can look up the answer!

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

I know, as well as you know, that science is not a religion! But, in the rat-penis-vagina concept, some might consider science as the same!
And, what the hell is so magical about a rat, and what powers could one gain from worshiping it?
what is so magical about a non existing being?
Quote
To me; religion is following the right path that will lead you to the creator, who sooner or later we shall join in His kingdom after this physical life.
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.
there is an equal chance that the world is made by Odin, it was also one time a religion.
Quote
They can choose to join the rat in the sewage if they wish, maybe there where they really belong, but certainly I don't wish to spend my afterlife in a shit hole!
how do you know there is an afterlife?
Quote
Religion is a goal you set in your life and aim for reaching - you live a descent life; being honest with yourself and with others > certainly you shall reach high after death.
And if you aim for a shit hole > you certainly shall be dumped there!
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are.
look at statistics about crimes and religion
according to your idea, atheists must be all criminal and dishonest.
Quote
You see; there are no complications in religion > science can confirm that, as well!
It's an easy equation - in fact, the easiest I was confronted with!
no complications in religions????
if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?
even all the different christian religions.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 01, 2017, 12:24:48 PM
^^^With intikam banned, you win the award for the most off topic useless post today.

You also prove my point of how the very first thing people like you do is throw insults to anyone that questions your religion.

Sad.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 12:51:19 PM

Quote
what is so magical about a non existing being?

Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!


Quote
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.

I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe!  ::)

Quote
how do you know there is an afterlife?

If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!

Quote
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion

And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?

Quote
no complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?

They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.

You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.

I have made mine - did you make yours?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 01, 2017, 01:37:28 PM

Quote
what is so magical about a non existing being?

Compare the shit hole with the universe around you!


Quote
how do you know that it is that way? and how do you know that the religion that you follow is the right one.

I chose to be a good person - is there a better way to live your life? Worshiping a penis or vagina, maybe!  ::)

Quote
how do you know there is an afterlife?

If there is one; I'd rather go high and not into a shit hole!

Quote
i can tell you that the most not honest people are the religious ones are. look at statistics about crimes and religion

And I can tell you they claim to be religious, but they're not - they worship their ego!
If some one blows himself up in the name of "Allah" - does that make Allah a terrorist and a murderer, or should we call the terrorist who killed those innocent people an impostor who uses the name of God to justify his Satanic actions?

Quote
no complications in religions???? if there is no complications in religion why are there so many different ones?

They call what they follow religions but they're not!
I've heard of someone who invented a new religion and gained some followers in time - then, he put them all in a hall and all set fire with their bodies! > That must've been a quick come and go religion, and there are examples of many others.

You can complicate things and you can make things as easy as running water!
And, you can worship the creator (be connected to him), or you can choose the rat, penis and vagina - it's certainly a personal choice.

I have made mine - did you make yours?
i do not worship anybody or anything.
i have not seen one religion that makes any logical sense.

i would almost say the old believes of people in nature make more sense than to believe in a imaginary being.

as you know, especially the bible make for me not a little bit logic sense, i did not read the jewish and islamic version therfore i am not sure about these stories, but as you mention that they have almost the same stories than the bible i think they are also not very logical.



Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on June 01, 2017, 01:45:50 PM
The answer to the original forgotten question is still and always has been no.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 01, 2017, 02:14:14 PM
The answer to the original forgotten question is still and always has been no.

And this is still incorrect
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 01, 2017, 06:06:00 PM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Alpha2Omega on June 01, 2017, 08:29:48 PM

if you look at something as it has magical power than yes it is religion.

what do you see as a religion?
if you say that all these are not a religion than you also say that science can not be a religion.
these worshipper think that the thing they worship have magical power, scientist do not believe in magical power.
that must be for even a bigger prove that science is not a religion.

That is what most hypothetical science is...a belief in a magic power.

No.

No magic involved. An hypothesis will not be accepted as more than a possibility until it can be tested and passes the test. Making accurate predictions of previously unknown effects is the strongest evidence that a hypothesis is correct, but explaining, with a plausible cause, several mystifying but not obviously related phenomena also works.

Late 19th century:

The orbit of Mercury had been found to be precessing about the sun in a way that cannot be fully explained by classical mechanics (Newtonian physics and Keplerian orbits) unless a hitherto unknown, and, so far, undetected mass exists. All efforts to locate said mass failed.

Early 20th century:

General relativity, an hypothesis that relates gravity and space in a previously unexpected way is proposed. It explained the precession of Mercury's orbit but also predicted some other, rather bizarre, effects, like light being bent by gravity. After it was validated by seeing starlight being affected by the sun as predicted, as observed in the May 29, 1919 eclipse, it became the theory to beat. It has passed every other test in the century that followed its development.

Similarly, also late 19th century:

Geologists and biologists could explain a lot of what's observed, but their hypotheses required a vast amount of time to be plausible.

Physicists and chemists cannot provide a plausible mechanism for the sun to produce the energy it is producing, or to explain the heat flow from the interior of the earth, for more than a few thousand years at most; not even a tiny fraction of the time needed.

Radioactivity and nuclear energy, a previously unknown and vastly more powerful energy source is discovered.

After that, enough energy for billions of years of sunlight and a heat source within the earth are not only plausible, but likely.

In the vernacular of this forum, those 18th century geologists needed a "magical energy source" to justify their hypotheses. Until an adequate energy source was discovered to be not so magical after all, their ideas remained in the realm of "interesting", but hypothetical.

Quote
We can't prove it, observe it, or replicate it as even the most basic scientific method will require. However, don't mind that, it happened as we said, it is FACT...anyone who calls us out for our hypocrisy or doesn't accept our false conclusion of the group think bubble, we will call ignorant/brain dead/barbarians etc etc.

You don't get any more "religion like" than that.

Nice strawman. Hypothetical ideas like dark matter, strings, and the like will be treated as just ideas until they have better support, and if new data disproves them or a better idea comes along that displaces them, they will be mostly forgotten or the subject of posts by the likes of sandokhan. There's nothing wrong with postulating explanations for unexpected observations; no serious scientists will recognize them as more than hypothetical until there's actual support for them.

Quote
At least I admit my beliefs are just that...a belief.

Cool. And scientists' beliefs are, or have been, tested with experiments. Most will change their belief if new evidence shows they were wrong.

Quote
I consider them a fact, however, I don't shit my pants and start belittling someone who does not agree with me.

Some scientific principles are so strongly supported by evidence that they are considered facts. Often, even those are shown to be "useful approximations" as more precise data comes in, such as: the earth is a sphere; no, it's actually an oblate spheroid with about 0.3% flattening; no, it's a slightly irregular geoid varying from an ellipsoid by up to a few dozen meters. If you don't need the extreme precision of the geoid model, the ellipsoid can be considered correct. If you don't need the improved precision of the ellipsoid, a sphere is a good-enough approximation (and much easier to work with).

Heck, if you're dealing with a limited enough area, you can even presume sea level datum is a flat plane and get away with it, knowing full well that the datum is actually something very close to a very large sphere; for the area of a square mile or so, the difference is inconsequential for most purposes, and the calculations involved are vastly simplified.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FETlolcakes on June 01, 2017, 10:35:32 PM
As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.

There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.

Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.

On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.

Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?

Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?

@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.

The vegetarians I know are almost like religious zealots.    I don't know a single one who doesn't take vitamin supplements.

Thanks for your worthless anecdote. If you'd like to me to destroy the idea that veganism/vegetarianism is somehow analogous to religious dogmatism, let me know because I'd be happy to clear up your misconception.

Vegans can shove their tofu.

You remind me of this guy (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/79/2f/43/792f439f1f893756af7a5ebcd9a04c8d.jpg). It's about as good as your 'argument' (for lack of a better word) gets.

sounds like your (you're*)are vegan.
and with that comment you just proved that you get not enough nutrition to have a fully functional brain.

Satire? Sarcasm? Joke? Really hard to tell on this forum.

If not, could you tell me of the nutrient found only in meat, eggs or dairy that also isn't found from a plant-based source that relates to brain function?

Cheers  :)

And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...

I think before attempting to refute something which you clearly know little about, I would do just a tad bit of research. Veganism ≠ perfectionism; it's about minimising harm to other animals insofar as practicable and possible. All you've done is built up a strawman and knocked it down. Congratulations, it's already been done and refuted countless times before!

Now, speaking of researching/looking things up, I would check out what the Tu Quoque fallacy is because it actually seems applicable to your post.

Sorry for any derail; feel free to start a new thread elsewhere/PM me if you have any Q's.

Cheers  8)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 10:42:24 PM
B12 is a bacteria

 :D  :D  :D
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 01, 2017, 11:21:55 PM
B12 is a bacteria

 :D  :D  :D

I think it's rather obvious what he meant

"B12 is produced in nature only by prokaryotes in the form of certain bacteria and archaea; it is not made by any multicellular or single-celled eukaryotes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria

But yeah, most likely noone in this forum even know the difference between pro- and eukaryotes.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 01, 2017, 11:27:26 PM
B12 is a bacteria

 :D  :D  :D

I think it's rather obvious what he meant

"B12 is produced in nature only by prokaryotes in the form of certain bacteria and archaea; it is not made by any multicellular or single-celled eukaryotes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Bacteria

But yeah, most likely noone in this forum even know the difference between pro- and eukaryotes.

How lucky we are that you are here to tell us things.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 01, 2017, 11:30:26 PM
How lucky we are that you are here to tell us things.
Yeah, I hope you're at least grateful.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 01, 2017, 11:40:42 PM
As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.

There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.

Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.

B12 is a byproduct from bacteria fermentation. It is NOT bacteria!

Animals like cows, goats and sheep are ruminants. They have 4 chambers in their stomach and a rich supply of bacteria in their rumen

Herbivores like horses, rabbits etc have large cecums in their digestive tracts which is located between the small and large intestine. This is where bacterial fermentation takes place. Ours is not so large. Many of these animals also ingest the soil from which they eat and they also eat their own or others faeces which could be a source of B12 due to the bacteria that had time to ferment in there. I don't know, maybe primitive humans relied on eating their own poo and the soil? Maybe modern day vegans who want a 'pure' diet do the same??? But then wouldn't poo be classified as an 'animal product'? lol

On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.

This may be the case if the soil we have moved animals onto does not contain sufficient amounts of cobalt, which is required for B12 production. This does not in any way support your argument that humans evolved as vegans. B12 is also incredibly cheap to synthesise. I guess the answer if you want a healthy herd is 'why not give it to them?' Soil sample and blood testing is probably far more expensive and time consuming than just incorporating it into a feed lot.

Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?
So, you personally don't take any supplements at all? or any B12 fortified foods? Almost every vegan site or forum I have read has insisted users drink/eat B12 fortified foods or take supplements.

Perhaps you can point me to the direction of a vegan community which abstains from any food/drink that is fortified with the vitamin

Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061

Here is what it says about B12

Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria, not plants or animals. Individuals who follow a plant-based diet that includes no animal products may be vulnerable to B12 deficiency and need to supplement their diet with vitamin B12 or foods fortified with vitamin B12


Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?

Nobody eats eggs or dairy to obtain only a single vitamin. Eating eggs for example gives you a broad spectrum of vitamins, minerals and proteins and can be incorporated into a healthy diet. When I get home I plan to have a 2 egg omelette with some cheese!! :)

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable. Nothing wrong with healthy saturated fats in moderation. Nothing right with highly unstable and toxic processing of cheap polyunsaturated seed oils.

B12 fortification and supplements was not available to us hundreds to thousands of years ago. We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.

@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products
Quote
Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.

Our ancestors never travelled far and wide to incorporate such varied diets. And we only really learned agriculture about 12,000 odd years ago. What say you to the humans 100,000 years ago? I bet that Woolly Mammoth looked pretty appetising in the winter time or times of hardship. Also, we were probably indiscriminate eaters and ate anything that moved. Grubs, insects etc. All fair game (but not for a vegan)

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 01, 2017, 11:44:31 PM
How lucky we are that you are here to tell wiki us things.
Yeah, I hope you're at least grateful.

Fixed it for you  ;)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 01, 2017, 11:52:42 PM
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
I was using pubmed, not him.

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.
So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.


We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.
I don't think anyone pretended or said that.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 02, 2017, 12:15:04 AM
Seeing as you seem to reference this site, maybe you lend weight to what it says and don't consider it to be a junk evidence-free opinion piece
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061
I was using pubmed, not him.


Apologies, sometimes it looks confusing with numerous users and quotes in quotes and editing in your replies. Must make more use of the preview button. However I find pubmed to be a valuable resource that isn't junk or 'evidence-free'

And you want to talk about transfatty acids? Look no further than cheap vegetable/seed oils. Probably among the biggest offender. I use coconut oil mostly myself. Saturated and stable.
So you think saturated = transfatty acid. Interesting. Actually it's not; saturated refers to the amount of double bindings between the fa's c atoms, whereas transfatty acid refers to the conformation of the molecule.

No, I am saying I find saturated fats to be the least likely to contain transfats (especially 'raw' ones like virgin coconut oil and extra virgin olive oil). His argument suggested that animal based diets are responsible for transfats in our diets. But the culprit I have found is the refining and processing of unstable seed oils

It is the seed oils that undergo heavy toxic processing (and are mostly polyunsaturated and unstable when exposed to light, heat and oxygen) that are the worst offenders. These oils were introduced in the big 'saturated fat scare campaign'

Most oils used in the food industry are 'vegan' anyway. I would have to deliberately find an innocent looking product that uses butter or lard as a base. And if so, where is the evidence they are transfatty?

We evolved as omnivorous. No use pretending we didn't or that we didn't have to.
I don't think anyone pretended or said that.

That's certainly the feel I have gotten from some. That humans 'did not need' animal meat/products to get to where we are and that even without fortification and supplementation (an impossible ask not so long ago) that a vegan could have a healthier diet than one that uses a moderate intake of animal products (such as some meat, eggs and dairy)

I notice that when vegans like to compare diets, they take the best example of a vegan diet (many vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, grains etc) then compare it to the worst SAD (Standard American Diet) which involves copious amounts of burnt meat, soda and heavily processed junk and sugar foods and insufficient or absences of fruits and vegetables. My own diet looks nothing like that.

I see nothing wrong with a balanced diet that can incorporate all the food groups myself.

One vitamin that neither western or vegan diets get much of, but is very important for your health is Vitamin K2. Vegans can get it through natto, but how many people outside of Asia do you know like to eat it regularly? If not through natto, you can get through aged cheeses, butter, meat and eggs however the amount in anything but aged cheeses and natto is pretty low. Most multivitamins do not have K2 either but you can buy it on its own
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 02, 2017, 12:26:50 AM
No, I am saying I find saturated fats to be the least likely to contain transfats
Yeah, I'm pretty sure saturated fats can't be transfats because saturated fats do not contain any double bonds between two C atoms, which would obviously be required to get a trans fat.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: SkepticMike on June 02, 2017, 01:29:58 AM
To answer the OP "Is science the new religion?" then no it's not. Faith and trust are two very different things.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: sceptimatic on June 02, 2017, 03:22:30 AM
Science and religion need to be clarified, because there's a few parts to what religion is and only one exactness to what science is.

If we are talking about religion being the belief/faith/worship of a super being/entity, then we can all agree that it is, for all intents and purposes, exactly based on faith, unless a person can directly prove otherwise, which has never been done to my knowledge.

People can argue that answered prayers are definitive proof of their religious belief's. I could argue that praying to a ham sandwich gets some of my prayers answered.
It's all about the odds.

Science is the Earth. It is everything we are and are part of in the physical knowing terms.
Science is how we explore and use all resources from studying a leaf to seeing what makes up a grain of sand, etc.

Basically science is natural. It's a reality of everything that we can verify physically.
Anything other than that would be classed as guesswork.
It's fine to see an old house with a home sweet home knitted love heart on the door and guess that a little old lady lives there; maybe with a little old husband and possibly a small pet.

Until you physically prove this, then all you're going on is guesswork.
How true that becomes is solely down to how the story can be told about the occupiers of that little old house.
Mass opinion can take a foothold and can render any other person who questions that guesswork, as irrelevant.

If you cannot physically verify something then it's not natural science.
If you have faith in something that cannot be physically verified, then it's a religion.

Real natural science is something that is indisputable.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 02, 2017, 04:48:25 AM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on June 03, 2017, 01:22:48 AM
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 01:32:58 AM
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Funny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.

What a hypocrite you are!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Resistance.is.Futile on June 03, 2017, 02:08:02 AM
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Funny thing is, you write your bullshit on a computer/smartphone, probably visit a doc every once in a while, probably use airplanes/trains/cars now and then.

What a hypocrite you are!

You talk nonsense my owning of automobiles building engines building computers has nothing at all to do with me believing in your religion you must be confused.

You will never see the globe.

Fact......

You fundermentalists don't do yourself any favours  :)

Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)

Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.


Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.

The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 02:12:24 AM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 02:30:00 AM
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 02:51:58 AM
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 02:57:42 AM
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 03:47:56 AM
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?
That's probably the dumbest argument I have heard on this matter.

Well then, tell me you smartass - can you live without rules?
The only real rules are the rules of nature (interaction between matter). If you think they have been made by god, that's okay and I don't mind.

Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!

Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!

But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?

I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 05:11:14 AM
Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!

Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!

But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?

I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
You are overthinking things.
I recommend learning some maths and physics for better understanding.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 05:25:58 AM
Gooooooooooooooood then - nature has rules, but God doesn't!

Thank you - I'm satisfied so far with your ignorance and case is closed to me!

But, please tell me, just out of curiosity, before I go; is "nature" a thing, an intelligent being, or does it just act on its own?
Does it have its own brain, maybe?
Is nature a god of its own?

I mean; it has rules, and rules must be followed and obeyed - so, can we say since nature rules are above everything and everybody > could we call nature god and us its followers?
You are overthinking things.
I recommend learning some maths and physics for better understanding.

I'm done with your science - beat it now, you made me sick!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: rabinoz on June 03, 2017, 05:47:28 AM
Thank you for answering my question
Science is a religion we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)
A religion is based on belief, by faith, without the necessity of physical evidence.
The essence of Christianity is "By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God".
If someone asks for physical proof of that, you can't give it - there is none.

All science is based on evidence and is definitely not a religion.
Whether you call it "physical evidence" or not depends on you own definition of "physical evidence", but it is all based on observations.
Some of these observations may be by microscope, X-ray diffraction, spectrography, astronomical telescope or radio telescope, but to the relevant scientist, they are all observations.

Now, I will grant you that a number of areas of science does enter into the realm of conjecture.
It is still based on some evidence, but many may regard it as straying too far from that evidence.
I would put much of cosmology under that heading, where maybe it is straying too far from the evidence that we have.
And to a large degree, the interpretation of the observations may depend on the "model of the universe" assumed.

Now, what one does with these situations is up to the individual - personally I just note that it not an area of science that I know much about and just read it with a passing interest, not necessarily believing or disbelieving it, till more evidence comes along.

But you say that "we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)".
It is true that most will never see the whole Globe with our own unaided eyes.
Nevertheless, we can see so much evidence for the Globe with our own eyes, that for me there is no problem at all believing that the earth really is a huge Globe. Then the less direct evidence, say from astronomy or other branches of science just fits in with my own observations.

After all the development of the heliocentric Globe as the accepted shape of the earth has been a gradual progression right from Babylonian times (yes, I know they along with the Chinese etc, believed that the earth was flat), the Greek "period" through to the times of Copernicus to Newton.

Here is not the place to go into that in detail, but it is not "modern science" that decided on the heliocentric Globe.

If you and others feel that "we are all manipulated from a very early age into believing something we will never see (globe)", then maybe there is something lacking in our education systems. Maybe there should be more on the reasons why, rather just the bare facts.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
The deeper and darker question is why are you bothered what people believe If you are" NOT " Religious.
I am not "bothered what people believe", but I do get concerned when that belief leads them to claim that large numbers of who believe that the earth is a Globe are deceivers and liars.
I am not exaggerating, just look at the many videos on YouTube (esp by Jeranism) and more particularly at the comment hard-line flat earthers make - don't talk to me about venom and hate from Globe supporters!
You have not been like some, but just look at hate that Dutchy shows for NASA.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
Like all religions non believers are insulted and called crazy.

Your religious leaders encourage this behaviour.
I know many flat earthers are said to be ignorant because of their abysmal understanding things like simple physics, optics and even elementary photography.

No, science is not a religion, so I have no "religious leaders" among scientists.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 03, 2017, 06:42:26 AM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!

You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."

That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators,  everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.

Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!

You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."

That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators,  everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.

Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?

What, what.... what?
Who said that statement, in the first place? Are you addressing me or someone else?
And where did I threaten everyone?
Why are you throwing false accusations at me, claiming I said so and so?
Please show me where I said your FALSE accusations! Please...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 11:02:20 AM
But you can read, right?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 03, 2017, 11:05:00 AM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!

You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."

That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators,  everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.

Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?

What, what.... what?
Who said that statement, in the first place? Are you addressing me or someone else?
And where did I threaten everyone?
Why are you throwing false accusations at me, claiming I said so and so?
Please show me where I said your FALSE accusations! Please...

You say that I am wrong with that sentence?
There are arguments that would you stop believing in a religion?
What would be these arguments.

In this text you said that all should follow the right way or everyone stay in a dirt hole. And as you always explained that your believe is the right way.

In the other thread you did even more threatening and insulting.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 12:25:08 PM
@ CB, I respect you chose logic to set your belief - not to follow any particular religion, because none made sense to you.

I can understand that very well, based on the current view over most religions, which honestly doesn't look very promising of getting any better!

I do also believe that all three Abrahamic religions are under control by those who either sold their souls to their political leaders and turned religions into profitable organisations, or sold their souls to the devil and turned religions into terrorist organisations.
In both cases, it seems to me that religion is the sole victim of whatever they plot around it to discredit its reputation.

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question - if there were to be a religion that you could follow, how or what do you expect that religion to be,  and where could it possibly lead you?

Thats a good question.

it would be a religion that makes logical sense.
-without any need to worship a thing, somebody or an imaginary being
-without any illogical rules
-without any magic
-without any threatening of punishment if you do not believe in it

but if you take all that away, is it than still a religion? does not religion base on all that?

now my question: what would it take you to not believe in a religion anymore?

That's a good answer - and was expected!
Also a good question from you - and also was expected!

Which of course will lead to the next important question:
* Name me one thing in this world that does not have rules to follow?

You have rules at home, at school, at work, on the street, in the country and the whole world - everything follow rules, and that's the nature of humans.

Now remove those rules from home, school, work and your entire life > I need not to tell you what would happen then, because any sane man would surly agree with me that chaos will take over, the life cycle will stop and the whole world will drift into the demise!

You need a boss at home, at school, to run the company, to run the government and the country.
So, why not the universe? Why are you excluding that from the natural, logical & universal equation.
If you believe your life should not be governed by chaos, then why would you expect the universe to be governed by chaos, and not by a creator and a sustainer, who also have a set of rules for all humans to follow?

There is nothing wrong with rules - we follow them from cradle to grave, and certainly cannot live without them!
When you follow the rules at work, everything will go smooth and the company will run healthy, and so does everything else.
> It's no magic - just simple logic!

Any dereliction or lessening in your work, your boss will warn you once or twice, then they will kick you out of the company - wouldn't you say it would be a fair punishment?
Was the boss strict and hard with his actions against you or was he fair?

Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!

You gave the answer I expected.
Lot of word only for basically one short sentence:
"there is nothing that could make me not believe anymore in my religion."

That show how narrow minded you are and how ignorant.
You say you know the absolute truth what is the "right" way. And you threatening everyone that do not believe the same you do.
That is how dictators work: follow me or you will get punished.
And that is what I hate about religion and their fanatic followers. They act like dictators,  everyone shall come to their believe.
That is horrible and addition to that the most cover it under speeches that they do good stuff.

Why shall I follow something that try to convince me with threatening and not with logical arguments?

What, what.... what?
Who said that statement, in the first place? Are you addressing me or someone else?
And where did I threaten everyone?
Why are you throwing false accusations at me, claiming I said so and so?
Please show me where I said your FALSE accusations! Please...

You say that I am wrong with that sentence?
There are arguments that would you stop believing in a religion?
What would be these arguments.

In this text you said that all should follow the right way or everyone stay in a dirt hole. And as you always explained that your believe is the right way.

In the other thread you did even more threatening and insulting.

This is what I quoted here:
Quote
Why would you be afraid of God's rules if you are a good straight forward man?
We all make mistakes and learn from them, then correct them and therefore correcting the path in our lives.

Like home needs a lord and a set of rules to run - the universe needs a God and a set of rules to run.

There is no magic here - we all have to experience life with all its goodness and badness, choose the right path and come out clean from this dirt hole!

Please tell what is wrong with what I said?
Why you keep on misunderstanding me and changing my words?
What is the right path in life, that you think I meant? > It is simply being good people!
What is wrong with that?
We go through life with all its goodness and badness, and we work hard to stay on the right track and come out clean from inside! And, yes - earth is a dirt hole and we are made of the same dirt > after death, the good souls will come out clean from this physical/ dirt body and ascend!

What is wrong in following the right path and being good people?
Is that an insult to you?
Am I forcing everybody to be good?

What common sense are you addressing me with?

As for my attacking and insults in the other thread, as you claim - I think I already answered Shifter in that regard - that my words were mere reflections to his insults (User), prior to mine.

I never attack anyone unless attacked by them!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 03, 2017, 12:35:12 PM
Jesus didn't attack anyone even though the people hung him on a cross. What's your excuse?

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 12:55:59 PM
Jesus didn't attack anyone even though the people hung him on a cross. What's your excuse?
He has mental issues, we shouldn't judge him.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 01:11:29 PM
Jesus didn't attack anyone even though the people hung him on a cross. What's your excuse?

I'm simply not Jesus!  ;D

He's my teacher and my preacher, and I always look forward to learning his true message, and I always look up to reaching high where he's reached.

My rules are simple > you treat me good and you shall find me better than you, and you treat me bad > you should bear the consequences of your acts!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 03, 2017, 01:18:14 PM
But Jesus told us to love our enemies. How much better would the world be if everyone followed this advice.

I'm looking for anything he may have said about stepping on necks but all I can find about that is that's something guards in the North Korean gulags did to babies that were born there from their raping. It sounds so cruel.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 01:29:18 PM
I'm looking for anything he may have said about stepping on necks

That was not his thing. He used to whip people and push over tables when they sold stuff instead of living as a bum like him.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 01:30:14 PM
But Jesus told us to love our enemies. How much better would the world be if everyone followed this advice.

I'm looking for anything he may have said about stepping on necks but all I can find about that is that's something guards in the North Korean gulags did to babies that were born there from their raping. It sounds so cruel.

Again, you're twisting words and using them where they don't belong!

Love our enemies - to treat them as we wish to be treated!

But, when they want to curse the name of God in public, even Jesus will not allow for that to happen!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Wolvaccine on June 03, 2017, 01:33:45 PM
His execution was a pretty public spectacle. All mocking him, treating him like a swine shit and calling him a fraud etc. Yet he remained dignified. More than I can say for you
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 01:37:35 PM
This thread is depressing.

Again, making it simple...real science is not a religion, it is a simple observation of tests and data collection. Very useful (this is where phones, cars, etc come from as poor user attempted to use as an argument)

Hypothetical science is not fact, here is where the religion steps in. I wouldn't care, people can BELIEVE what they want. However, being passed as 100 percent fact, then all who do not believe are belittled, called stupid a simpleton etc etc...this is where my problem lies. This confuses people who likes facts, but are either too dumb and/or lazy to research themselves.

As for the idiots saying they are being attacked here because they don't believe in a God.. that is just stupid and deflection of their own actions. I haven't seen anyone attack anyone here for that reason. I myself know I have said "You can believe whatever you would like. Even though I consider my beliefs fact, I have no qualms with someone who disagrees...as I am fully aware, in the core, my beliefs are just that, a belief."  So stop saying nonsense people.

The only attack is passing belief as a fact...

Those in the religion of science will never admit it, just like those in a cult will never call it a cult.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 01:48:28 PM
Note that Babybrain is a real engineer, did research on radiometric dating methods (finding out that they are all wrong, though without publishing his findings), can read Hebrew and Noah was 1000 years old when he made his ark.

Everybody is interested what he has to say about science.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on June 03, 2017, 02:01:24 PM
I don't agree with all BHS's conclusions but I do agree with his post above for the most part.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 02:05:36 PM
I don't agree with all BHS's conclusions but I do agree with his post above for the most part.

I'm not really surprised.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 03, 2017, 02:16:02 PM
It feels like babybullshit does copy pasta his 'mimimi hypothetical science is religion mimimi' bullshit everywhere he can.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 02:26:04 PM
Note that Babybrain is a real engineer, did research on radiometric dating methods (finding out that they are all wrong, though without publishing his findings), can read Hebrew and Noah was 1000 years old when he made his ark.

Everybody is interested what he has to say about science.

If people have seen many responses from users on this thread to me and others it is humorous..they say "No you are wrong" then do exactly like I say. A self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, thanks for the bolded section as I am one. Went to school for a plethora of years, followed by a plethora of extracurricular studies and certs. Have had a firm that has done "engineering stuff" under my watch for a decade and have had success at it. I have already shown and proven this stuff here while others blew hot air.

So if people want to talk about REAL science then yes, let's talk. I would be someone to talk to, I have earned my right to speak on the subject.

Certainty moreso than an angry "Malaysian" bunkered up in a swamp flooded backwoods two ticks away from a bout with Lyme disease. (If I am incorrect please post evidence otherwise, though I won't hold my breath) Real science created the Google balloon that is even allowing you to post for the moment, not religious science.

So yes, real science I can and would like to talk about. Hypothetical and religious science, please contact your local priest er I mean "scientist"...they even take donations
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 02:28:31 PM
It feels like babybullshit does copy pasta his 'mimimi hypothetical science is religion mimimi' bullshit everywhere he can.

You mean an actual post with actual substance? That would be foreign to you. Get help
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 02:38:24 PM
...plethora...engineering stuff...shown and proven this stuff...hot air...REAL science...someone to talk to...earned my right to speak...


Do you have a reasonable explanation why you always sound like one of those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 02:57:31 PM
...plethora...engineering stuff...shown and proven this stuff...hot air...REAL science...someone to talk to...earned my right to speak...


Do you have a reasonable explanation why you always sound like one of those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something?

I don't know why people do that. I don't like that, thus why I always show actual customized proof of what I have said, and make fun of blow hards. My post history contains it all, I can also repost whatever you would like.

Do you have a reasonable explanation why you sound like the "religious nuts" you always make fun of when you talk about your religion of science?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 03:10:10 PM
...show actual customized proof of what I have said...My post history contains it all, I can also repost whatever you would like.

That's how those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something sound.

Also I know the shit you post.

Quote
and make fun of blowhards

Yes, Babybrain, cause that's what they are for.

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on June 03, 2017, 03:24:03 PM
This will go nowhere, I can tell you right now. But feel free to keep it up for 140 pages.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Canadabear on June 03, 2017, 03:29:13 PM
...

As for my attacking and insults in the other thread, as you claim - I think I already answered Shifter in that regard - that my words were mere reflections to his insults (User), prior to mine.

I never attack anyone unless attacked by them!

You threat was generaly, you said:
"I will break the neck of someone that insult my god"

You say that you are willing to kill somebody because that one said something you did not like.

It is quit a overreaction to murder somebody for an verbal attack.

You are getting lower each time you post something like that.

As a believer in some kind of the Christian religion  do you not have to follow the 10 commandments? Especially: you shall not kill.
Or is it on of the things that is put in the Bible by the corrupt people, as you claimed
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 03:34:39 PM
...show actual customized proof of what I have said...My post history contains it all, I can also repost whatever you would like.

That's how those poor guys without a life who only post on Internet Fora to pretend to be something sound.

Also I know the shit you post.

Quote
and make fun of blowhards

Yes, Babybrain, cause that's what they are for.

We have only interacted mainly in political/religious area. Doubt you have seen the posts I am speaking of. Plus many were many moons ago in the vacuum thread etc when I cared and when having fun with legbot, some are in the 9/11 thread. That's about it.

Also, as what people do when they "front" who they are..well there are plenty of examples here. They just keep saying something over and over again, yet refuse to post any evidence of such claims. Then deflect and make fun of others...happens all the time. They don't post up customized proof to the poster asking for it...sorry mister prophet. (Not to mention try to get a fes meetup organized)

I also noticed you ignored this...here I will repost just in case you missed it.


Do you have a reasonable explanation why you sound like the "religious nuts" you always make fun of when you talk about your religion of science?

You are cool in my book and you know it Mr angry prophet  :D

This will go nowhere, I can tell you right now. But feel free to keep it up for 140 pages.

Ha ha ha ha.. we will see if it needs to be pulled, but give it to 50
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 03:44:32 PM
I'm not angry with you.

You know:

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad"

Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 04:17:29 PM
I'm not angry with you.

You know:

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad"

I like your quote. If science has already made up its mind to the truth despite the accuracy, how can reality come abroad?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 05:39:58 PM
The sentence makes no sense.

Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.

I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?

There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.

Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.

Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.

I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (their own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 03, 2017, 05:58:34 PM

There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.



like Earth Heating.

1001 predictions - Zero proof?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 06:04:01 PM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

I somehow don't believe you
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 06:23:22 PM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

I somehow don't believe you

Stop proving what I am saying about you religious people.

The sentence makes no sense.

Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.

I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?

There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.

Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.

Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.

I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.

Insults, calling me an idiot because I question the validity of faith and opinion stated as "fact"... Just as I keep saying you religious people act.

As I have said many times, I know scientific method, my entire profession/business/livelihood depends on it....There is no room for opinion/agenda or any form of belief (yes you can believe an idea will work, but if proven wrong through actual scientific method then it is trashed or reworked...it doesn't continue to production and passed as a working unit)

Ok fine...we won't call your "science" a religion or "hypothetical science" ..we will call it as you say, a belief.

Though I will say this, it sure walks, talks and looks like one.

And one more thing, it certainly isn't science
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 03, 2017, 06:27:43 PM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

I somehow don't believe you


Shhhhhhh   ;)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 06:34:48 PM
...said many times...know scientific method...profession/business/livelihood....

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Computer-Guy-Facepalm.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Hannibaal on June 03, 2017, 06:47:18 PM
...

As for my attacking and insults in the other thread, as you claim - I think I already answered Shifter in that regard - that my words were mere reflections to his insults (User), prior to mine.

I never attack anyone unless attacked by them!

You threat was generaly, you said:
"I will break the neck of someone that insult my god"

You say that you are willing to kill somebody because that one said something you did not like.

It is quit a overreaction to murder somebody for an verbal attack.

You are getting lower each time you post something like that.

As a believer in some kind of the Christian religion  do you not have to follow the 10 commandments? Especially: you shall not kill.
Or is it on of the things that is put in the Bible by the corrupt people, as you claimed

Listen to me CB, you can continue on twisting my words as you wish, although I explained to you that what I said is a phrase which means I will teach him a lesson he won't forget,  and surely didn't mean to kill anybody.
 
Haven't you heard this phrase before? 

But you can believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say here,  and I am really tired of trying to prove myself to you guys.

Obviously I don't belong here where constantly and intentionally I'm misunderstood by the many,  just because I have a different way of defending my belief.

If I have ever insulted anyone, I do apologise for that and asking for your forgiveness.

I wish you all the best in life and in your quest in finding the truth about our reality.

I shall miss some of our conversations regardless of our differences!

Fare well and good bye...
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on June 03, 2017, 06:55:53 PM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

But that's OK. I don't even know the difference between to and too.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 07:06:32 PM
I'm Bots and never mak a tyop.

Great, buddy. Looking forward to the "flat earth meet-up"?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on June 03, 2017, 07:09:40 PM
I'm Bots and never mak a tyop. At least not when I'm implying that others are intellectually inferior because they don't see things the way I do.

Great, buddy. Looking forward to the "flat earth meet-up"?

ftfy

Well I doubt I'll make it, but it sounds like fun!
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 07:11:11 PM
...said many times...know scientific method...profession/business/livelihood....

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Computer-Guy-Facepalm.jpg)

Lol, are you even trying anymore?

I notice you won't answer certain questions, I wonder why? Are you in a corner sir?
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 03, 2017, 07:43:34 PM
I notice you won't answer certain questions, I wonder why? Are you in a corner sir?

Yes, I'm in the corner, Babybrain, whatever, why not.

(https://misscaptainalex.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/16.gif?w=640)
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 03, 2017, 07:53:26 PM
I can still see your foot
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Bullwinkle on June 03, 2017, 08:36:42 PM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph


FWIW . . .

That's not an actual quote. Just his feeble attempt to obfuscate. 
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Twerp on June 03, 2017, 09:43:47 PM
Those are really totallackey level tactics. Since I like to think of myself as at least average level intelligence as well as a grown-up, I'm embarrassed to have taken part! :-[
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Lonegranger on June 06, 2017, 01:27:07 AM
I think the problem with this thread is it follows the old adage, if you can't construct a good argument against it then, the best thing to do is discredit it.

Everyone who knows anything about science knows that in the end truth will out. Sure the road will be bumpy and their be lots of disagreements about competing ideas, but in the end the one that works will be the one left standing. In addition science discovers new things that add to our knowledge that gives us a better understanding of how our world and the universe operates.

Religion love it or hate it does not operate like science, evidence, experimental data, p,any no part. In contrast religion operates on belief, in that you either believe it or not. In religion you also have a very wide choice from the many religions currently on offer. But mostly what religion you follow is based on either your parents or postcode/zip code.

In down town Islamabad you are much more likely to be a follower of Islam than Judaism for example, why?....because that's were you were brought up, that's were you live, nothing to do with which ones most attractive, or has the better god. Science does not operate in that way.

The initial question was a vain attempt to pull science down into the mire of confusion where religion reigns supreme.

I've never heard about murders or killings being done in the name of science, but unfortunatly it appears to be a daily occourance when it comes to religion.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: simba on June 07, 2017, 06:10:16 AM
This is the stupidest post i have seen in this site, and that's saying too much, considering this is a FES site.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 07, 2017, 06:26:53 AM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

I somehow don't believe you

Stop proving what I am saying about you religious people.

The sentence makes no sense.

Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.

I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?

There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.

Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.

Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.

I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.

Insults, calling me an idiot because I question the validity of faith and opinion stated as "fact"... Just as I keep saying you religious people act.

As I have said many times, I know scientific method, my entire profession/business/livelihood depends on it....There is no room for opinion/agenda or any form of belief (yes you can believe an idea will work, but if proven wrong through actual scientific method then it is trashed or reworked...it doesn't continue to production and passed as a working unit)

Ok fine...we won't call your "science" a religion or "hypothetical science" ..we will call it as you say, a belief.

Though I will say this, it sure walks, talks and looks like one.

And one more thing, it certainly isn't science

I have a feeling you call science "hypothetical science" when it disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Is Science the new Religion ?
Post by: FalseProphet on June 07, 2017, 06:35:26 AM
I'm to dumb to look at a graph

I somehow don't believe you

Stop proving what I am saying about you religious people.

The sentence makes no sense.

Can you please try to understand that science is about evidence; truth is a colloquial term.

I just want to help you to cover up that you are an idiot. Posting shit you find on the internet to sound knowledgeable, as you like to do, is insufficient for that. How do you think you can hoax somebody into believing that you ever did any kind of "research" when all you say about science sounds as if you have directly copied it from Ken Ham?

There is no "hypothetical science". What could be called as such would be a hypothesis that cannot yet be tested. It is still science. It is the task of experimental or observational science to find ways to test a hypothesis. As soon as a hypothesis can be tested, it can either be proven wrong (falsified) or not. A hypothesis is tested by observing if its predictions are accurate.

Science is a method, nothing more. It allows us to gain knowledge about the unobservable by analyzing the observable. By analyzing the spectra of stars we gain knowledge about their composition. By observing the fossil record we gain knowledge about past life. It is essentially the same what a hunter does when he observes the traits of an animal and gains knowledge about the animal itself although he cannot observe it.

Different from science is scientizism. It is the worldview, that the scientific method is the only way for humans to gain knowledge, that is "scientific evidence" is identified with "truth". This claim is not part of the scientific method itself. You can call that a belief, but it is still not a religion, because it has no rites.

I can't see where there is any place for religion. All religions I know contain statements about history (there own history) and in many cases also about biology, cosmology etc which can easily be proven to be wrong. You will never be able to understand that because you lack the intellectual sincerity to accept that principally the same methods of scrutiny that can be applied for analyzing a technical device can also be applied for a historical text or a paleontological site.

Insults, calling me an idiot because I question the validity of faith and opinion stated as "fact"... Just as I keep saying you religious people act.

As I have said many times, I know scientific method, my entire profession/business/livelihood depends on it....There is no room for opinion/agenda or any form of belief (yes you can believe an idea will work, but if proven wrong through actual scientific method then it is trashed or reworked...it doesn't continue to production and passed as a working unit)

Ok fine...we won't call your "science" a religion or "hypothetical science" ..we will call it as you say, a belief.

Though I will say this, it sure walks, talks and looks like one.

And one more thing, it certainly isn't science

I have a feeling you call science "hypothetical science" when it disagrees with you.

No I think "science" is for him, what the founding fathers would have called "useful arts" in 18th century language. Science, he thinks, is how to make a smartphone or a car.