You Can't Trust Science!

mysterious

Science is carreid and perceived on limits. Science can never EVER get past time and distance linear illusion bullshiit most people are cot in.

Welcome to Earth...:rolleyes: We think we know it all from the ground, with science. Science is the source and curse of why are we are stuck in our minds and illusions. We cannot see past the physical prison we created ourselves. Science basically created it.

studiorat

Theories aren't taught as fact. That's a misunderstanding. Scientific 'Laws' govern our understanding, but they are still just theories. The 'Theory of Relativity', 'Quantum Theory' etc, the clue is in the name. There's certain things that we take as empirical, or more precisely as a 'given' until a better understanding comes along. Electricity or Gravity for example, no one really knows what they are exactly, but we all know that given a set of circumstances they will act as predicted; apples will fall from trees, light bulbs will light up etc. We even use different models for different occasions and they still do what we expect them to do, I don't expect certain theories will ever be fact, ever-ever!

uprising2 wrote: »

Science has many different area's also, and many different approach's, some science is 100% spot on, some is pure fantasy and lies, some is to heal, some is to kill, the people who like to use it to kill seem to be the top men of science now, and frankly these are madmen, sadists, occultists and string along fools.

The above quote is a theory as far as I can see, it offers no proof simply opinion, so scientifically speaking it's not even a particularly robust theory.
If it was it would give examples of '100% spot on science', and 'fantasy and lies'.

Considering how much pseudo-science is around, I'm not suprised people are so distrustful of it as an entity.

studiorat

mysterious wrote: »

Science is carreid and perceived on limits. Science can never EVER get past time and distance linear illusion bullshiit most people are cot in.

Most people get past the 'linear' thing very early with a decent education and a bit of understanding. There's very few things that actually are 'linear' in this world and that it fact

Time is subjetive BTW. Personally I think it has very little to do with anything outide of out perception.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Theories are taught as fact,

Lets assume for a moment that this is true.

Doesn't that suggest that the problem lies with our education system, and not with science? Science is not the problem here...but rather our use of it in education.

Science has the ability to "try" save this planet,

No, it doesn't.

Science could offer us models by which we can better understand what is happening, and what the impact of our various decisions would/could be.

It is then up to us what we choose to do with this information.

Again, this is a case where science is not the problem, but rather how we use it.

The video in the OP (which I admit to having not watched) is clearly targetted at the creationism vs science "debate" (I put that word in quotes as I am using it in the loosest sense possible). As such, the video is mostly a reaction to the oft-used strategy of Creationists to argue that science is untrustworthy.

To try and put the discussion in a more forum-relevant form...

It is quite often the case here that we see people (regardless of beliefs on the topic) refusing to accept the validity of some claim or research that claims to be scientific in nature. In some cases, it is because they don't accept that the research has met the required standards to be taken seriously as scientific work. In some cases, it is because they simply don't trust the researchers. There are also some cases, where it literally boils down to belief....that people believe something else to be true, and therefore categorically reject the (allegedly) scientific position, offering some sort of variant of the various arguments that we've already seen on this thread.

Personally, I'm not going to suggest that people are right or wrong in such cases...but it does open some interesting scope for discussion.

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Lets assume for a moment that this is true.


The video in the OP (which I admit to having not watched) is clearly targetted at the creationism vs science "debate" (I put that word in quotes as I am using it in the loosest sense possible). As such, the video is mostly a reaction to the oft-used strategy of Creationists to argue that science is untrustworthy.

To try and put the discussion in a more forum-relevant form...

I saw this coming anyhoo. It turned out to be epic failure on the incitement or reactive side of others to swing to left or right again. Which is so lame imo.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

I saw this coming anyhoo.

You saw what coming?

studiorat

bonkey wrote: »

You saw what coming?

The aim of the Illuminati sausage machine :eek::eek::eek:, called ‘education’, is to activate, stimulate and reward the left brain while suppressing the right and because the most successful victims of this process end up administrating the system, so society is formed in their image.

Daivd Icke: The Intellect is the Prison of the Mind

Didn't see it coming myself...

Flamed Diving

uprising2 wrote: »

Anyway waffle aside, theory is pushed as fact where science is concerned, and it is not fact, its an idea of how something "might" work, but not definate, sometimes not even probable, yet it is pushed by the worldwide education system as fact, which is wrong.

Only a minority push science as fact. Generally the type who don't really understand it, or who are just trying to sell a few books, push an agenda. But the majority recognise that theories are hypotheses, strongly backed by evidence. If science was fact, it would cease to be science. Educated people should know this. So you are wrong in your assertion.

Flamed Diving

mysterious wrote: »

Science is carreid and perceived on limits. Science can never EVER get past time and distance linear illusion bullshiit most people are cot in.

Welcome to Earth...:rolleyes: We think we know it all from the ground, with science. Science is the source and curse of why are we are stuck in our minds and illusions. We cannot see past the physical prison we created ourselves. Science basically created it.

In fairness, I would be the first to say that there is more to this universe than we can detect. But I would never fool myself into thinking that my guesswork is an adequate substitute. That is the vital difference.

fontanalis

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It is counter productive to believe that Science, because it has given us so much, that it can explain everything and there is nothing more than it. In my opinion any kind of single standard belief system is self and group destructive. It reduces the possibility to open our hearts and minds and diminishes the chances of alternative thinking and learning, thus limiting us to a one dimensional existence and the possibilities of growing or evolving in any other way, individually or collectively, other than technologically. Ultimately, it can only serve as a self inflicted isolated life sentence. It is negative.
While having our minds and hearts open to all possibilities serves as a gateway to every possible good eventuality and can only be positive. Open you're mind and heart, it's better for everyone.

With all science has given us, it has not helped us evolve in any other way than technologically. And how does that serve us exactly ?

Science doesn't help us care for each other, it doesn't bring us closer to each other, it doesn't help us love each other, it doesn't stop us hurting or killing each other, it doesn't stop us from being greedy, power hungry, selfish, jealous, paranoid, mean, hatefull etc, it hasn't helped the homeless or the poorest or the third world, it doesn't help us love life, nature, wildlife, earth or creation, it doesnt help us love ourselves.

On the contrary, in reality, science has done little for humanity in the way of evolving mentally, spiritually and/or collectively. It has assisted in achieving the opposite of everything good and positive and with all our great technological advancements, we are worse off now in every sense possible than ever before.

So I ask you, can you trust Science ?

Sorry but your first paragraph is pure Oprah Woo, and your last two talk about science as it's a person who just pissed in your soup.

TalkieWalkie

fontanalis wrote: »

Sorry but your first paragraph is pure Oprah Woo, and your last two talk about science as it's a person who just pissed in your soup.

Another wonderful contribution, thanks fontnails. We are so lucky to have you're intellectually superior input. Oprah woo piss soup. Poetic.

Torakx

I know exactly where talkiewalkie is coming from.
I do agree that mankind has gone a bit too far with the ole material sciences and not enough with the spiritual side of things.
I see we may have made it to the moon and we may have satelites orbiting the earth but we still continue to end each others lives at a whim in many places.This to me is one of the most primitive ways of living.Humans are still in the stone age "spiritually" science has gone WAY too far ahead and we really need to catch up to make a balance.Otherwise we have this wonderful science and strategies for theory but no sane way to implement it.
We are quite backwards in this respect i think.we might be masters of the material world that we know of but spiritually we are babes.
We dont need to get rid of either science or spirituality only strike a balance.
Whenever i think of two things that come into conflict the ying yang symbol alot of the time pops into my head visually.Which is disturbing haha.

fontanalis

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Another wonderful contribution, thanks fontnails. We are so lucky to have you're intellectually superior input. Oprah woo piss soup. Poetic.

Yes, it sounds like the stuff you'd expect in the new age section. Put it this way if we didn;t have science you wouldn' have access to all the youtube clips that appear on here.

Flamed Diving

Torakx wrote: »

I know exactly where talkiewalkie is coming from.
I do agree that mankind has gone a bit too far with the ole material sciences and not enough with the spiritual side of things.
I see we may have made it to the moon and we may have satelites orbiting the earth but we still continue to end each others lives at a whim in many places.This to me is one of the most primitive ways of living.Humans are still in the stone age "spiritually" science has gone WAY too far ahead and we really need to catch up to make a balance.Otherwise we have this wonderful science and strategies for theory but no sane way to implement it.
We are quite backwards in this respect i think.we might be masters of the material world that we know of but spiritually we are babes.
We dont need to get rid of either science or spirituality only strike a balance.
Whenever i think of two things that come into conflict the ying yang symbol alot of the time pops into my head visually.Which is disturbing haha.

Now, there is a sensible post.

mcmoustache

mysterious wrote: »

Hear here

Bollox

thebman

Torakx wrote: »

I do want to say though that science is great.Scientists on the other hand are humans and they are not so great when it comes to honesty and integrity much like religions.

The thing is with science there will be always somebody questioning the other scientists findings and hoping it is bull so they can then make the real discovery themselves.

Where as in religion, anything goes as so much of it relies on faith.

With science it is based on reasoning that has been questioned again and again and tested and tested in the hope to find a flaw. In religion, if you question something, you don't have enough faith.

Torakx

Ye science does have protocols for determining a fact.Religion uses faith and suggestion to prove its facts.I have a problem with basing my whole reality around a book that is made by mans hands..at this stage of my life.
I think the problem if there is one in this thread is the atmosphere is sometimes gearing toward the old religion versus science game.
I even fell into that trap(maybe because of that atmosphere) a few posts back when i mentioned science and religion in the same sentence in relation to human honesty/integrity.
Really the problem still lies with us.We are a suggestable species with mental defences that sometimes block us from learning the truth of a matter.
The practise of science can help us with this issue i honestly believe,but not while it is hijacked by human interferance.
With regards religion i dont consider it to be quite the same as spirituality.
For me the human race should be focusing on being spiritually mature as a grounding.With science practise taking second place(we are already well ahead there).
If we lived in an immaterial reality i might have put it the other way around.
Where we are weak we need to be strong.
People shouldnt be butting heads about science itself or spirituality itself.
They are only here because we are here to observe them.And we certainly need them both.Religions i think are a false sense of spirituality in the west.In the east i still consider them to be mind control tools but i dont know enough to count them out as not being spiritual.
Actually now that i think about it.Religion is just spirituality in a ball and chain.As much as i fear an NWO one world religion i also fear a one world without any spiritual guidance.Without religion alot of lay people would be atheist or similar and rely on role models for their spiritual guidance.
I would hate to consider Obama as a religious leader as well as a political one.Really if that day comes the anti religion people will put their hands together i hope and say "God help us all".
The bible is a very old book of morals and stories but it has good morals for the most part.Until that has a proper replacement which i believe science could help with i think we need religions of some kind.MTV doesnt cut it these days for role models(intentional models i might add too).

bonkey

Fontanalis and TalkieWalkie....one warning lads. Enough bickering.

Flamed Diving

Torakx wrote: »

Ye science does have protocols for determining a fact.Religion uses faith and suggestion to prove its facts.I have a problem with basing my whole reality around a book that is made by mans hands..at this stage of my life.
I think the problem if there is one in this thread is the atmosphere is sometimes gearing toward the old religion versus science game.
I even fell into that trap(maybe because of that atmosphere) a few posts back when i mentioned science and religion in the same sentence in relation to human honesty/integrity.
Really the problem still lies with us.We are a suggestable species with mental defences that sometimes block us from learning the truth of a matter.
The practise of science can help us with this issue i honestly believe,but not while it is hijacked by human interferance.
With regards religion i dont consider it to be quite the same as spirituality.
For me the human race should be focusing on being spiritually mature as a grounding.With science practise taking second place(we are already well ahead there).
If we lived in an immaterial reality i might have put it the other way around.
Where we are weak we need to be strong.
People shouldnt be butting heads about science itself or spirituality itself.
They are only here because we are here to observe them.And we certainly need them both.Religions i think are a false sense of spirituality in the west.In the east i still consider them to be mind control tools but i dont know enough to count them out as not being spiritual.
Actually now that i think about it.Religion is just spirituality in a ball and chain.As much as i fear an NWO one world religion i also fear a one world without any spiritual guidance.Without religion alot of lay people would be atheist or similar and rely on role models for their spiritual guidance.
I would hate to consider Obama as a religious leader as well as a political one.Really if that day comes the anti religion people will put their hands together i hope and say "God help us all".
The bible is a very old book of morals and stories but it has good morals for the most part.Until that has a proper replacement which i believe science could help with i think we need religions of some kind.MTV doesnt cut it these days for role models(intentional models i might add too).

Firstly, the morality of the bible, predates the bible. Secondly, the bible condones slavery, rape, genocide, among others. Even if the rest of the book was sunshine and lollipops, you cannot wave away these points by saying "most of it is good".

Of course, science has little if anything to do with morality, except the study of its biological origins, perhaps. And even them it is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. But to say we require a very old book of stories to behave morally does degrade humanity, somewhat. It suggests that without it, we would all murder each other, or commit perjury, etc. I often worry when religious people say things like "without the bible, we cannot be moral". That is such a troubling statement.

Anytime a person states this, I instantly respond with: "So the only thing that stops you from ripping my gullet out, is that book?"

Torakx

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Firstly, the morality of the bible, predates the bible. Secondly, the bible condones slavery, rape, genocide, among others. Even if the rest of the book was sunshine and lollipops, you cannot wave away these points by saying "most of it is good".

Of course, science has little if anything to do with morality, except the study of its biological origins, perhaps. And even them it is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. But to say we require a very old book of stories to behave morally does degrade humanity, somewhat. It suggests that without it, we would all murder each other, or commit perjury, etc. I often worry when religious people say things like "without the bible, we cannot be moral". That is such a troubling statement.

Anytime a person states this, I instantly respond with: "So the only thing that stops you from ripping my gullet out, is that book?"

I was more refering to the comandments and the books of psalms i guess.
What i ment was western religion for example is based on an old book and that seems to me to have guided morals for a long time.I think long before that there was known to be alot of human sacrifice.Even in bible times.
But you could be spot on there.Where did we get our morals?
Maybe from our traditions.Is it only coincedance that religion has infiltrated tradition or just that it has no good effect?
I know my morals didnt fully come from the bible.It was more monkey see monkey do ,but i think the bible had an effect in irelands morals one way or the other due to the monkey syndrome over many generations combined with religious guilt.
I think the guilt trip is a terrible way to guide a nation but it worked for what it was intended at the time.
A scientific view on morals might be agreeable but i doubt people would learn because another person says scientificly its a good idea not to harm others.
When "God" said it people listened at least for a while.And looking at the mind control of other countries in the middle east i can see religion has a much much stronger influence on society and effects many actions especially morals.I just think its not the best way it needs to be updated to the same level we have science and call it spiritual awakening or something lol

TalkieWalkie

Torakx wrote: »

Where did we get our morals?
Maybe from our traditions.Is it only coincedance that religion has infiltrated tradition or just that it has no good effect?
I know my morals didnt fully come from the bible.It was more monkey see monkey do ,but i think the bible had an effect in irelands morals one way or the other due to the monkey syndrome over many generations combined with religious guilt.
I think the guilt trip is a terrible way to guide a nation but it worked for what it was intended at the time.

I think our morals come from within us.
I would ask the questions.. where, when and how did we loose our morals ?
It wasn't so much a guilt trip as much as it was a fear trip. Obey and have eternal life or sin or even question you're faith and suffer eternally in hell.

Flamed Diving

Torakx wrote: »

I was more refering to the comandments and the books of psalms i guess.
What i ment was western religion for example is based on an old book and that seems to me to have guided morals for a long time.I think long before that there was known to be alot of human sacrifice.Even in bible times.
But you could be spot on there.Where did we get our morals?
Maybe from our traditions.Is it only coincedance that religion has infiltrated tradition or just that it has no good effect?
I know my morals didnt fully come from the bible.It was more monkey see monkey do ,but i think the bible had an effect in irelands morals one way or the other due to the monkey syndrome over many generations combined with religious guilt.
I think the guilt trip is a terrible way to guide a nation but it worked for what it was intended at the time.
A scientific view on morals might be agreeable but i doubt people would learn because another person says scientificly its a good idea not to harm others.
When "God" said it people listened at least for a while.And looking at the mind control of other countries in the middle east i can see religion has a much much stronger influence on society and effects many actions especially morals.I just think its not the best way it needs to be updated to the same level we have science and call it spiritual awakening or something lol

Well, I think the question of "where did we get our morals" is fairly evident, imo. We developed them ourselves. The bible did not give us morals, we (bronze-age desert tribes) gave it morals, which is very obvious to see when you notice the pre-industrial, agrarian flavour of God's nature. I mean, if he is really who the book claims, where is all the scientific knowledge? Why is he so obsessed with farming, goat sacrifices? Why not throw us a heads-up on Germ Theory? God's knowledge stopped dead in the bronze age, because the bible was written by people in that society. Therefore, his morals, are the morals of those tribes (Deuteronomy, Leviticus). Modern society has risen to the stage where we find slavery, genocide, rape, racism, child molestation to be abhorrent, unlike Yahweh. Some societies remain (partially) in this mindset, despite having strong religious institutions.

What does that tell you? I think the best moral choice is the one where you think for yourself. You decide whether something is right or wrong, based on your experience/feelings. You don't decide because you are told to. You don't decide for fear of punishment, or hope of eternal reward. Those are the most tenuous types of moral behaviour, simply because they are not yours.

If you are still not convinced, then think about this. Before the Jews allegedly arrived at Mount Sinai, they had not yet received their moral commandments. Yet before this, they had formed a coherent group, and struggled together, wandering for decades through the Sinai desert, searching for the promised land. Yet, they did all of this, without a moral bone in their body? No godly commands regarding perjury, murder, stealing; to keep these savages in check? Why the need for celestial dictates, then?

The Bible just pwned itself.

Torakx

Haha good example.Actually on top of that after he brought down the ten commandments he caught them worshipping a bull and getting wasted.I think that imo was all about the changing of ages and nothign to do with a group that left Egypt or maybe it was both.
I guess i hate to let go of religion because i fear what mankind will do when they get organised on a world scale.
We are nowhere near ready for that,although some lessons need to be learned by experience i hope this isnt going to be one of those.

enno99

Just found these docs about transhumans

might interest some of you guys

http://www.ivi.co.za/videos/362/technocalyps.html

Nick Dolan

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It is counter productive to believe that Science, because it has given us so much, that it can explain everything and there is nothing more than it. In my opinion any kind of single standard belief system is self and group destructive. It reduces the possibility to open our hearts and minds and diminishes the chances of alternative thinking and learning, thus limiting us to a one dimensional existence and the possibilities of growing or evolving in any other way, individually or collectively, other than technologically. Ultimately, it can only serve as a self inflicted isolated life sentence. It is negative.
While having our minds and hearts open to all possibilities serves as a gateway to every possible good eventuality and can only be positive. Open you're mind and heart, it's better for everyone.

With all science has given us, it has not helped us evolve in any other way than technologically. And how does that serve us exactly ?

Science doesn't help us care for each other, it doesn't bring us closer to each other, it doesn't help us love each other, it doesn't stop us hurting or killing each other, it doesn't stop us from being greedy, power hungry, selfish, jealous, paranoid, mean, hatefull etc, it hasn't helped the homeless or the poorest or the third world, it doesn't help us love life, nature, wildlife, earth or creation, it doesnt help us love ourselves.

On the contrary, in reality, science has done little for humanity in the way of evolving mentally, spiritually and/or collectively. It has assisted in achieving the opposite of everything good and positive and with all our great technological advancements, we are worse off now in every sense possible than ever before.

So I ask you, can you trust Science ?

1. Science is not a belief system.
2. Open your mind all you like, the speed of light in a vacum is 2.999 x 10, the atomic mass of iron is 55.845 and these are known provable demonstratable facts.
3. If science has no explanation yet then you cant just say god/aliens/healing energy did it
4.Worse off now then ever before? so you would like to bring back the good oldl days of smallpox, polio, infant mortality, famine? Who needs things like electricity, x - rays , recorded music, insulated houses, life jackets newspapers.......
5. And as for your wishy washy spiritualism nonsence, your just 100% wrong off the mark. Consider the less scientifically advanced civilisations such as the Incas, the Kymer Rouge, the Hutus, the Vikings, all of whom solved their grievances by group hugs.

Worst of all is your spreading the myth that somehow science is a seperate entity, a mysterious ritual performed by bearded dudes in lab coats, having no relevence in our life.Nothing could be further from the thruth.Science is knowledge found by Us all, for Us all

mysterious

Nick Dolan wrote: »

1. Science is not a belief system.
2. Open your mind all you like, the speed of light in a vacum is 2.999 x 10, the atomic mass of iron is 55.845 and these are known provable demonstratable facts.
3. If science has no explanation yet then you cant just say god/aliens/healing energy did it
4.Worse off now then ever before? so you would like to bring back the good oldl days of smallpox, polio, infant mortality, famine? Who needs things like electricity, x - rays , recorded music, insulated houses, life jackets newspapers.......
5. And as for your wishy washy spiritualism nonsence, your just 100% wrong off the mark. Consider the less scientifically advanced civilisations such as the Incas, the Kymer Rouge, the Hutus, the Vikings, all of whom solved their grievances by group hugs.

Worst of all is your spreading the myth that somehow science is a seperate entity, a mysterious ritual performed by bearded dudes in lab coats, having no relevence in our life.Nothing could be further from the thruth.Science is knowledge found by Us all, for Us all

And all your doing is spreading your opinion.

So who's right?

digme

mysterious wrote: »

And all your doing is spreading your opinion.

So who's right?

science is

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

4.Worse off now then ever before? so you would like to bring back the good oldl days of smallpox, polio, infant mortality, famine? Who needs things like electricity, x - rays , recorded music, insulated houses, life jackets newspapers.......

Yes, worse off than ever before. We never left those days of smallpox and polio. We have aids, 100 types of cancer, swine flu to name a few. As for infant mortality, well we have abortion. As for the other luxuries you mentioned, while they may make our lives more comfortable, many cultures get on fine without them.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

5. And as for your wishy washy spiritualism nonsence, your just 100% wrong off the mark. Consider the less scientifically advanced civilisations such as the Incas, the Kymer Rouge, the Hutus, the Vikings, all of whom solved their grievances by group hugs.

I am not 100% off the mark, you are, as you don't have an argument off the mark, so far everything you have mentioned is bull.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Worst of all is your spreading the myth that somehow science is a seperate entity, a mysterious ritual performed by bearded dudes in lab coats, having no relevence in our life.Nothing could be further from the thruth.Science is knowledge found by Us all, for Us all

I am spreading no myth about science, you are just plain fabricating stuff to fit you're argument which is non-sense. LOL laughable tripe.

EDIT; I like the speed of light thing you mentioned, very awesome, have you any idea what it means or how it relates to this thread or anything I said ?

bonkey

Nick Dolan wrote: »

2. Open your mind all you like, the speed of light in a vacum is 2.999 x 10, the atomic mass of iron is 55.845 and these are known provable demonstratable facts.

Pedantically, they're not proveable....and in scientific terms, a fact is a measurement or observation already made. In other words, we can say its a fact that every time we have (reliably) measured light in a vacuum, we have found it to be such-and-such a speed (allowing for experimental error and/or limits of accuracy), but we can't prove that it will be that value the next time we measure it.

(We can, however, be very, very certain that it will be).

3. If science has no explanation yet then you cant just say god/aliens/healing energy did it

Of course you can. You can say that even if science does have an explanation for it. Saying something, however, doesn't make you right.

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes, worse off than ever before. We never left those days of smallpox and polio. We have aids, 100 types of cancer, swine flu to name a few. As for infant mortality, well we have abortion. As for the other luxuries you mentioned, while they may make our lives more comfortable, many cultures get on fine without them.

What on earth does this mean? Furthermore, from 130,000BC -1800AD, life expectancy around the world was around 35 years old. Then, following the beginning of scientific enlightenment (medicine, food production, immunisation), the Western World diverged from the rest. Now you, TW, can expect to live for 80+ years, more than double your ancestors.



Of course, the predictable response is to point to the unfortunate lot of poorer nations, and blame this on sciences failings. But as I have already pointed out, science is a tool, not an entity.

TalkieWalkie

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? Furthermore, from 130,000BC -1800AD, life expectancy around the world was around 35 years old. Then, following the beginning of scientific enlightenment (medicine, food production, immunisation), the Western World diverged from the rest. Now you, TW, can expect to live for 80+ years, more than double your ancestors.

I don't know why you are bringing this up again, I argued this point before and you thanked the post. It is meaningless having a longer life expectancy if we use it for material gain while the less fortunate suffer. However, there is not much else happening here so might as well argue it more.

Perhaps life expectancy has improved for us but is hasn't for others.
eg. Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan,Central African Republic, Liberia, Rwanda, life expectancy all below 46 years, some as low as 39 years. Though it is possible that in 130,000bc their lives were shorter too, should they be more grateful for living longer in extreme poverty and "what we would call" misery ? because they are not as scientifically as evolved as us. Perhaps they just are not materialistic as us. You don't miss what you never had right ?

Worse off now that ever before : with our scientific advances.

Hunger and poor nutrition directly or indirectly cause 36 million deaths per year, which is more than 1 death each second on average. On average, a child under five dies every 5 seconds as a direct or indirect result of poor nutrition. This is 6 million children per year, more than half of all child deaths.

I could post many more shocking facts on death, most causes would not have been around prior to all our scientific "enlightenment".

Undergod

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes, worse off than ever before. We never left those days of smallpox and polio. We have aids, 100 types of cancer, swine flu to name a few. As for infant mortality, well we have abortion. As for the other luxuries you mentioned, while they may make our lives more comfortable, many cultures get on fine without them.

Abortion has always existed. Infant mortality deals with death of children at a very young age. This has reduced dramatically with the rise of proper medical knowledge. Cancer has always existed, flus have always existed. AIDS may be a new disease, but new diseases happen all the time, doesn't change the fact we've eliminated smallpox and vaccinated against polio.
And yeah, they make our lives more comfortable. Which allows us to live longer. Which is good.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I am spreading no myth about science, you are just plain fabricating stuff to fit you're argument which is non-sense. LOL laughable tripe.

He was a bit off re the speed of light thing, but functionally he was correct. What's bull?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

EDIT; I like the speed of light thing you mentioned, very awesome, have you any idea what it means or how it relates to this thread or anything I said ?

I think the point was science has a track record of providing consistent results.

TalkieWalkie

Undergod wrote: »

Abortion has always existed. Infant mortality deals with death of children at a very young age. This has reduced dramatically with the rise of proper medical knowledge. Cancer has always existed, flus have always existed. AIDS may be a new disease, but new diseases happen all the time, doesn't change the fact we've eliminated smallpox and vaccinated against polio.
And yeah, they make our lives more comfortable. Which allows us to live longer. Which is good.

Maybe it has always existed, but it wasn't because people could not afford to have a baby or because of pregnancy out of wedlock. It is only now that in our scientifically advanced present that we abort our unborn due to these factors.

The incidence and reasons for induced abortion vary regionally. It has been estimated that in 1995 approximately 46 million abortions were performed worldwide. Of these, 26 million are said to have occurred in places where abortion is legal; the other 20 million happened where the procedure is illegal. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 per 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), had a comparatively low rate of induced abortion, while others like Russia (62.6 per 100) and Vietnam (43.7 per 100) had a high rate. The world ratio was 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies (excluding miscarriages and stillbirths).[52]

Undergod wrote: »

He was a bit off re the speed of light thing, but functionally he was correct. What's bull?

It's is a bullsh*t point to make and had no relevance. I had already agreed that science had brought us many great things. Why throw in a random scientific fact ? Other than to try appear clever.

EDIT : to add, Bonkey already stated that that random scientific fact was unprovable - yet, you thanked his post.

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I don't know why you are bringing this up again, I argued this point before and you thanked the post. It is meaningless having a longer life expectancy if we use it for material gain while the less fortunate suffer. However, there is not much else happening here so might as well argue it more.

I know, but you keep posting nonsense. Plus, you simply ignored (deleted) half my post which directly addressed the next quote. So you are just as bad as me.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Perhaps life expectancy has improved for us but is hasn't for others.

eg. Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan,Central African Republic, Liberia, Rwanda, life expectancy all below 46 years, some as low as 39 years. Though it is possible that in 130,000bc their lives were shorter too, should they be more grateful for living longer in extreme poverty and "what we would call" misery ? because they are not as scientifically as evolved as us. Perhaps they just are not materialistic as us. You don't miss what you never had right ?

Worse off now that ever before : with our scientific advances.

I could post many more shocking facts on death, most causes would not have been around prior to all our scientific "enlightenment".

But still, I have something to add. Firstly, if they are in such misery and their lives so worthless. Would you advocate an involuntary euthanasia program, to "put them out of their misery"? I thought not. Secondly, what on earth does "scientifically evolved" mean? Will you stop making things up? Thirdly, what was your point about infant mortality and abortions? Fourth, your bold and underlined statement is highly disingenuous. You swear people in these countries have free and full access to the fruits of science. Tsk, such silliness. On your final point, please don't. Most of it will be ill-informed rubbish.

Danke.

TalkieWalkie

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I know, but you keep posting nonsense. Plus, you simply ignored (deleted) half my post which directly addressed the next quote. So you are just as bad as me.



But still, I have something to add. Firstly, if they are in such misery and their lives so worthless. Would you advocate an involuntary euthanasia program, to "put them out of their misery"? I thought not. Secondly, what on earth does "scientifically evolved" mean? Will you stop making things up? Thirdly, what was your point about infant mortality and abortions? Fourth, your bold and underlined statement is highly disingenuous. You swear people in these countries have free and full access to the fruits of science. Tsk, such silliness. On your final point, please don't. Most of it will be ill-informed rubbish.

Danke.

I never said "worthless", you did, because you are out of argument lol hence your little "advocate an involuntary euthanasia program" thing you just threw in there and answered for me. Then you state "will you stop making things up", which is exactly what you just did. You were the first to bring up your little life expectancy chart, which was ill-informed. Here is the link to my ill-informed facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy.
My point about infant mortality and abortion is quite obvious, though we may have longer life expectancy (the point you keep clinging to), is meaningless, (remember, you thanked this point before). My "bold underlined statement" wasn't a statement, it was a header, in bold. You are making things up again.
No, I wouldn't swear these people in these Countries have "free full access to the fruits of science", and that is my point, and yes, that would be silliness to suggest. And finally, "Most of it will be ill-informed rubbish ", sounds like you were referring to your last post, again.
The next time you get frustrated because I counter prove all your points, say something like, "ok, good point there", or "yeah, I guess ya go me there".
Up until your last post I had some respect for you, I just thought you were misguided, then your desperation became very clear.
good luck

Flamed Diving

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I never said "worthless", you did, because you are out of argument lol hence your little "advocate an involuntary euthanasia program" thing you just threw in there and answered for me. Then you state "will you stop making things up", which is exactly what you just did. You were the first to bring up your little life expectancy chart, which was ill-informed. Here is the link to my ill-informed facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy.
My point about infant mortality and abortion is quite obvious, though we may have longer life expectancy (the point you keep clinging to), is meaningless, (remember, you thanked this point before). My "bold underlined statement" wasn't a statement, it was a header, in bold. You are making things up again.
No, I wouldn't swear these people in these Countries have "free full access to the fruits of science", and that is my point, and yes, that would be silliness to suggest. And finally, "Most of it will be ill-informed rubbish ", sounds like you were referring to your last post, again.
The next time you get frustrated because I counter prove all your points, say something like, "ok, good point there", or "yeah, I guess ya go me there".
Up until your last post I had some respect for you, I just thought you were misguided, then your desperation became very clear.
good luck

This post is very difficult to read, and makes little sense.

TalkieWalkie

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This post is very difficult to read

Of course you would say that. You are frustrated, take a deep breath and try calm down and stop stamping you're feet.

bonkey

Enough personalising of the argument guys.

Also - please remember that we're talking about whether or not science can be trusted, not some philosophical, subjective notion of whether or not science has improved our lot as a species.

If you feel that science has or hasn't brought any meaningful improvements to our species, thats your entitlement. Its not, however, clearly related to the question of whether or not there is a question of trust involved.

mysterious

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? Furthermore, from 130,000BC -1800AD, life expectancy around the world was around 35 years old. Then, following the beginning of scientific enlightenment (medicine, food production, immunisation), the Western World diverged from the rest. Now you, TW, can expect to live for 80+ years, more than double your ancestors.



Of course, the predictable response is to point to the unfortunate lot of poorer nations, and blame this on sciences failings. But as I have already pointed out, science is a tool, not an entity.

I agree life expectancy has risen, but the scientific path is making us more robotic, less creative, more irrational, less attentive, more destructive, less aware, more ignorant and totally dependent on a materialistic way of life.

People pre biblical times lived much longer than we did. In Atlantean times they lived much longer too. Infact science killed Atlantis off. Simply because logic and science mind goes against the laws of nature in almost every way possible.

It's called imbalance. Science is destined to fall. Just as much as been too spiritual. Been too spiritual makes you too egoistical and obsessed with your highs. Been to scientific, makes you too egoistical and obsessed with knowing.

This is time is so crucial to our development, that the ancients such as the Hopi's, Mayas and other post Atlantis civilizations are trying to warn us of what we are not paying attention too. Science is not the answer. Science will reach its peak and it will turn against us. A classic movie that I can relate to just while typing this is the matrix. The matrix is the logical moving human world with machines. They are in the future where machines have outsmarted man, and Mr. Anderson is the powerhouse of the entire matrix and otherwise known as Lucifer. He is all light all knowledge, but is empty at the same time. Machines want to destroy humanity. Humans wants to destroy humanity.

It takes ONE to bring the war to an end, not because he believes in something but he believes we are all, and that peace and balance can be restored to its natural equilibrium. We created science remember. It is not the defenete and it never will be.

We have a right and left brain for a very good reason. We are designed to use both equally. The problem is we don't. In this timeline we have let science get ahead of our natural spiritual state. Which makes us turn into the beast, or machine state. It's all I want i want, and I take I take. I need I need. We are trying to cheat ourselves.

Flamed driving life expectancy may be going up, but that's only in the west and the sad truth is, people in the west are not living fuller lives. We are less happy. We work longer hours, We fight each other more. If that's not enough we go and kill millions in the poorer countries. We are sucking the life out of this world just to satisfy our material greedy lifestyle. Natural medicine and homeopathy can make us live longer and naturally. But since we live a monetary system. Been natural isn't profitable. Science may have done good things, but it has done very very bad things too. Science may have created immunity to diseases but it has created far more diseases than ever before. Science is a perspective not the answer.

I think I've said this already.
When your really look into, we are really forgetting who we are on a spirit level that we really are more than just a physical body. It's the insanity and ignorance we wallow in causes us man to destruct ourselves because we cannot see the truth of what we really are.

Brown Bomber

Nick Dolan wrote: »

1. Science is not a belief system.

No. Scientific materialism is though.

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Scientific materialism is though.

?

fontanalis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Scientific materialism is though.

Are you David Quinn?

fontanalis

mysterious wrote: »

I agree life expectancy has risen, but the scientific path is making us more robotic, less creative, more irrational, less attentive, more destructive, less aware, more ignorant and totally dependent on a materialistic way of life.

People pre biblical times lived much longer than we did. In Atlantean times they lived much longer too. Infact science killed Atlantis off. Simply because logic and science mind goes against the laws of nature in almost every way possible.

It's called imbalance. Science is destined to fall. Just as much as been too spiritual. Been too spiritual makes you too egoistical and obsessed with your highs. Been to scientific, makes you too egoistical and obsessed with knowing.

This is time is so crucial to our development, that the ancients such as the Hopi's, Mayas and other post Atlantis civilizations are trying to warn us of what we are not paying attention too. Science is not the answer. Science will reach its peak and it will turn against us. A classic movie that I can relate to just while typing this is the matrix. The matrix is the logical moving human world with machines. They are in the future where machines have outsmarted man, and Mr. Anderson is the powerhouse of the entire matrix and otherwise known as Lucifer. He is all light all knowledge, but is empty at the same time. Machines want to destroy humanity. Humans wants to destroy humanity.

It takes ONE to bring the war to an end, not because he believes in something but he believes we are all, and that peace and balance can be restored to its natural equilibrium. We created science remember. It is not the defenete and it never will be.

We have a right and left brain for a very good reason. We are designed to use both equally. The problem is we don't. In this timeline we have let science get ahead of our natural spiritual state. Which makes us turn into the beast, or machine state. It's all I want i want, and I take I take. I need I need. We are trying to cheat ourselves.

Flamed driving life expectancy may be going up, but that's only in the west and the sad truth is, people in the west are not living fuller lives. We are less happy. We work longer hours, We fight each other more. If that's not enough we go and kill millions in the poorer countries. We are sucking the life out of this world just to satisfy our material greedy lifestyle. Natural medicine and homeopathy can make us live longer and naturally. But since we live a monetary system. Been natural isn't profitable. Science may have done good things, but it has done very very bad things too. Science may have created immunity to diseases but it has created far more diseases than ever before. Science is a perspective not the answer.

I think I've said this already.
When your really look into, we are really forgetting who we are on a spirit level that we really are more than just a physical body. It's the insanity and ignorance we wallow in causes us man to destruct ourselves because we cannot see the truth of what we really are.

How can a chemical diluted to the nth degree make people live longer?

Flamed Diving

fontanalis wrote: »

How can a chemical diluted to the nth degree make people live longer?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/581-homeopathy-qualifies-for-the-million-dollar-challenge.html

So simple, why not collect the million bucks?

In addition, note that he (mysty) says it isn't profitable, ignoring the BILLIONS earned by the industry.


On a more sombre note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f975xKbLm4k

fontanalis

Good article also.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4957

Nick Dolan

First, Im sorry my first post got a little personal, i feel very strongly about this .I was mainly trying to combat this notion that conventional science has an equal footing with other alternative explanations and is therefore no different. Nonsence. That the earth is flat can be considered an alternate theory but it has been proved to be demonstratably untrue. Scientists didnt just decide to agree the earth was spherical, they had to face all the evidence that supported it. Anti scientific people tend to focus on grey issues such as health but you never here people talking about alternative theorys of electricity or geometry . The reason I gave all those numbers (I do know what im talking about, I study light everyday in college) is that they are proven, given constants and there are hundreds others.They are all used everyday to boil water, keep satellites in orbit, transmit tv signals and keep wheels turning.Heres a simple experiment - Hold a bowling ball over your foot and open your mind to the fact that gravity does not exist. If your toes remain nice and wiggly then you can come back and tell me science cant be trusted.

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

First, Im sorry my first post got a little personal, i feel very strongly about this .I was mainly trying to combat this notion that conventional science has an equal footing with other alternative explanations and is therefore no different. Nonsence. That the earth is flat can be considered an alternate theory but it has been proved to be demonstratably untrue. Scientists didnt just decide to agree the earth was spherical, they had to face all the evidence that supported it. Anti scientific people tend to focus on grey issues such as health but you never here people talking about alternative theorys of electricity or geometry . The reason I gave all those numbers (I do know what im talking about, I study light everyday in college) is that they are proven, given constants and there are hundreds others.They are all used everyday to boil water, keep satellites in orbit, transmit tv signals and keep wheels turning.Heres a simple experiment - Hold a bowling ball over your foot and open your mind to the fact that gravity does not exist. If your toes remain nice and wiggly then you can come back and tell me science cant be trusted.

No one is saying it can't be trusted.

Nick Dolan

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

fontanalis

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

You'll encounter alot of this, best to get used to it now.

Wibbs

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? Furthermore, from 130,000BC -1800AD, life expectancy around the world was around 35 years old. Then, following the beginning of scientific enlightenment (medicine, food production, immunisation), the Western World diverged from the rest. Now you, TW, can expect to live for 80+ years, more than double your ancestors.

Yes and no. What skews the stats of the past was the very high infant mortality rate. People living in times of relative calm and prosperity could expect to live well beyond 30. OK famous people from history: Aristotle died at 62, Rameses the great was in his 90's, Plato at 80/81, socrates at 70(and poisoned at that) Hadrian at 62, Later on Titian was in his late 80's when he died, Michelangelo was 89. our own Columbanus was 75 when he died after traipsing across europe for a laugh. Childhood mortality majorly skewed the stats, but if you made it to 30 back then the chances of seeing 70 were not that much lower than now. The middle ages saw a drop in Europe, because of successive plagues rolling in year after year.

Plus if 30/40 was the average age of death, how come 3 score and 10(70) or in some cases 80 as an average not questioned around the time of christ as invalid?

gospel;
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Now this is 2000 yrs ago and was aimed at a general audience, both local peasant farmers and the roman and greek world it was later aimed at. If someone came along today and said the average span of a life was 200 years, people would raise eyebrows. They didnt back then as they clearly knew enough 70+ year olds knocking about. Further afield the chinese and the japanese in particular didnt see anything unusual in living to a "good age". Even today there are groups of long lived peoples largely isolated from the western world who live as long or even longer than us on average(certainly healthier).

Yes we've added 10 years on as an average and we've saved a lot of kids who would have otherwise died and that's brilliant, but make no mistake if you went back in time to ancient greece or rome as a 70 year old you wouldnt be seen as some strange demigod.