Thanks To Science

[graybear13]

"Prometheus was a titan who really liked humans.
He helped them in any way he could. When he saw
them shivering at night and eating raw meat, he
knew they needed fire. But the Gods did not allow
man to have fire. They knew that man would misuse
it and destroy with it. Prometheus was sure that
the good man did with fire would outweigh the bad,
so he stole fire from the Gods and gave it to man..."
and so science was born.

Science likes to project itself as the savior of mankind and religion as the cause of all evil. I admit that religion has been responsible for wars, death and destruction but science provided them with the tools. Science always gave us a new ultimate weapon...

In my life I have seen our Army, Navy and Airforce with all of their terrible weapons (fighter jets, rockets, biological weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons) kill with impunity. Whats next antimatter weapons?
Thank you science

Now once again we see the horror of a nuclear power plant melt down killing and maiming countless thousands of people. Again...Thank you science

I can see why you are atheist...you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you developed a moral conscience.

gray

[Betsy]

"Science likes to project itself as the savior of mankind"....??? When has science EVER done such a thing?

First of all, science is not a sentinent being with intentions and feelings, but let's say you meant to say that "some people like to project science as the savior of mankind." And that you meant that "some people say that religion..." is evil. You're making a false argument based on extremes that do not exist (in sensible debate, anyway).

I appreciate your attempt to create a thread about how the situation in Japan is all the fault of "science", but your basic premise is flawed. "Science" is not to "blame" for anything. It just is. That's like blaming the facts when something goes wrong.

Many people want to explain tragedies like earthquakes and tsunamis as acts of God. They're not; they're just things that happen and there are perfectly good scientific explanations for them. It's not BLAME when it's "science"; but it is BLAME when it's God. It seems like you're trying to apply this kind of BLAME to science, but God (a being with thoughts, feelings and intentions) and Science (facts) are not comparable.

Nuclear plants are designed and built using science. Sounds like you're blaming "science" because the earthquakes damaged the ones in Japan, instead of the people who designed and built them.

Maybe you should try thinking your argument through before you just slap some emotional nonsense on the forum, eh?

[Dardedar]

It seems Graybear didn't get any brighter during his sabbatical.

Then he sneers: "[you atheists] wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you developed a moral conscience."

Yes, because we really need to look to his religious folks and their holy books in order to "develop a moral conscience." Apparently Graybear hasn't taken a few moments to read our tract on morality. I'll reproduce part of it here:

***
Why your morals are better than the Bible’s

The Bible condones slavery.
Although supposedly a book of morals it never says anything against slavery. Yahweh instituted slavery at Exod. 21:2. Leviticus 25:44 explains where to get slaves and that you can hand them down to your children. Exod. 21:21 allows a slave owner to beat a slave to death, as long as it is an unintentional result of the severe beating. Ephesians 6:5 has: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Colossians 3:22 says: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it,… with sincerity of heart and reverence for the LORD."

The Bible supports polygamy.
Yahweh gave David many wives and would have given him more: "Thus says the LORD,... I gave you your master's house, and your master’s wives… if this were too little, I would add to you as much more." (2 Sam 12:7-8). His son Solomon is the only person in the Bible specifically described as being loved by Yahweh. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The Bible has condoned and even required human sacrifice.
…and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest… And after that God was intreated for the land. (2 Sam. 21:1-14; see also Exod. 22:29-30; Lev. 27:28-29; Ezek. 20:24-26)

The Bible has supported mass genocide.
So Joshua… utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. (Joshua 10:40)
…do not leave alive anything that breathes. (Deut. 20:16)
…Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15:3)

The Bible teaches that women have an inferior status to men.
Wives be in subjection to your own husbands, as unto the LORD,… as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

The Bible says a woman must marry her rapist.
…she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her… (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Well I declare... how could any one develop a "moral conscience" if they didn't have a holy book or a superstitious religious tradition to appeal to?

If Graybear would like to learn about and contrast the sort of moral principles people come up without God, (as opposed to the sampling of gems sited directly above), he can begin his education here:

The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles

D.
----------------
“One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” --Arthur C. Clarke

[Doug]

Now once again we see the horror of a nuclear power plant melt down killing and maiming countless thousands of people. Again...Thank you science
I can see why you are atheist...you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you developed a moral conscience.

DOUG
I find it amusing that Graybear implies that atheists use science while he does not, and perhaps he'd say others who endorse religion do not.

Thanks for reminding us via computer and Internet how little you think of science, Graybear!

"If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?"--Richard Dawkins, See here.

[Dardedar]

One would be remiss to not point out that, as usual, Graybear's mutterings of righteousness having something to do with godliness, include a nice shovel load of hypocrisy.

Did anyone notice that his complaints against science and nuclear technology were tapped out on a computer, powered in part by our local nuclear plant?

Have you finished your free energy vortex booster rocket yet Graybear?

[Savonarola]

Well, others have beaten me to the punch for most of the good stuff, but there's a bit left I'd like to address:

Now once again we see the horror of a nuclear power plant melt down killing and maiming countless thousands of people. Again...Thank you science

Quite. Thus, the people closest and most sensitive to this current problem have abandoned science and all scientific understanding in order to address the problem in the most reliable way, which can't possibly be using science, right?

Right, graybear?

And another thing: Science couldn't have been expected to stop the earthquake or the tsunami, but your god allegedly could. Clearly, your god sat back and let it happen. But you still worship the guy. and then think that you're in a position to lecture us regarding morality? No, some of us know when the emperor has no clothes.

[Dardedar]

Science invents the knife, (which has many wonderful life enhancing and life saving properties), and then graybear wants blame science when someone takes one and uses it to poke somebody. What a buffoon.

A good Sam Harris clip on the roots of morality.

[graybear13]

Maybe you should try thinking your argument through before you just slap some emotional nonsense on the forum, eh?

Hi Betsy,

When I take the time to string a bunch of words together and put them on the internet I'm just trying to make a statement about something I'm feeling....It's not meant to start an argument. If you don't get what I'm saying that's fine but I have to get a little emotional to give a shit enough to say something.

Thank you for not lowering yourself to name calling.

I would also like to say that science can actually be thought of as being the sum total of all living scientists. Maybe that sound argumentative but I don't mean for it to be.

Science SHOULD think of itself as our last best hope....Figure it out, stop selling out and get down off your high horse we're all counting on you.

gray

[graybear13]

Have you finished your free energy vortex booster rocket yet Graybear?

No. Still workin' on it. I'm not optimistic but I am hopeful thanks for asking.

gray

[Savonarola]

... but I have to get a little emotional to give a shit enough to say something.

Emotion is, by its very nature, not based on reason. Letting emotion dictate your actions is a very poor way to proceed through life if you're wanting to have a contemplated, positive impact.

I would also like to say that science can actually be thought of as being the sum total of all living scientists. Maybe that sound argumentative but I don't mean for it to be.

Yeah, "argumentative" isn't the word I'd use, either. I'd pick something more like "stupid." Are Einstein's discoveries no longer part of science because he's not alive? If everyone who understands quantum mechanics were to die, but we had previously coded predictive algorithms for QM into computers, would those predictive algorithms no longer work?

Science SHOULD think of itself as our last best hope...

Why wait? Just call it the best hope. (It certainly knocks the piss out of religion in terms of productivity.)

... we're all counting on you.

You say that now, yet in the OP you were bashing science. See, this is what happens when you let emotion drown out reason; you can't even make it through two posts without contradicting yourself.

[graybear13]

Why wait? Just call it the best hope. (It certainly knocks the piss out of religion in terms of productivity.)

O.K. But it's not good enough is it?

We're still acting like fools and killing each other over energy.

gray

[Savonarola]

But it's not good enough is it?

We're still acting like fools and killing each other over energy.

What's that? Even science cannot prevent people from being idiots? I agree. (For example, I know of a guy who thinks that gravity vortices can produce free energy from nothing, even though science plainly shows that this can't be done.)

[kwlyon]

Grey,

People kill other people. This is the result of our evolutionary baggage. It has nothing to do with the sciences. Religion has certainly been USED to direct people two horrific acts they otherwise would not commit. But at the end of the day, religion is just a means to exploit an already willing population. I think it is fair to say that religion would like to lead us all back into the caves. Science has given us our best hope of rising above this evolutionary baggage. It has already given us lives we can enjoy--removed us from a purely darwinian environment. I think you are aware of this Grey. You have a rather flimsy grasp of the sciences--as does almost EVERYONE for that matter. However, speaking with you I could tell you have a healthy respect for what science has given us even if you don't have a solid awareness of the fine details.

I think, however, that you have a desire to hold on to faith. This is certainly something I understand and respect. However you MUST be running into doubts and conflicts as you are here seeking validation. I encourage you to keep looking and thinking. Try to let go of the fear...what ever is true is true...and what ever is not is not. One day we must grab that beer.

Kevin

[graybear13]

I know of a guy who thinks that gravity vortices can produce free energy from nothing, even though science plainly shows that this can't be done.

I know that guy your talking about and I think he's right.

If science had not been swayed by Lemaitre and the Catholic Church toward the "Primeval Atom" theory and had instead embraced Fred Hoyle's (a confirmed atheist) "Steady State" theory maybe they wouldn't have gone off chasing the big bang bullshit and become so confused.

If Einstein had known about Dark Energy and Dark Matter (the nothing you speak of) at the time he was factoring in his "cosmological constant" he, along with Hubble and the boys, would not have been so easily swayed and maybe they would have hooked up with Hoyle and the problem would have been solved by now.

Here is a thought experiment on Einstein's "cosmological constant" ....As you leave one galaxy and move toward the next galaxy you will reach a point where the dark matter is not moving and pushing you toward the center of the galaxy you just left anymore. You then enter an area of dark energy. As you move toward another galaxy,not being pushed in any direction by the dark energy, at some point this galaxy's gravity (dark matter) will begin to push you into it's vortex.

It's like coming out of a whirlpool in the middle of the ocean. When you reach calm water you can float freely until you come close to another whirlpool. Then you will be pushed toward it. The calm water (dark energy) is a buffer between whirlpools (galaxies).

The calm water feeds the whirlpools but because there is so much of it the whirlpools are not attracted toward each other unless they drift to close each other.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which
the established authorities are wrong." Voltaire

gray

[Doug]

If science had not been swayed by Lemaitre and the Catholic Church toward the "Primeval Atom" theory and had instead embraced Fred Hoyle's (a confirmed atheist) "Steady State" theory maybe they wouldn't have gone off chasing the big bang bullshit and become so confused.

DOUG writes:
Maybe you can explain to us your "reasons" for thinking that the Big Bang theory, which is pretty standard in science, and confirmed by many different avenues, is false.

[kwlyon]

I know of a guy who thinks that gravity vortices can produce free energy from nothing, even though science plainly shows that this can't be done.

I know that guy your talking about and I think he's right.

Uh...no, he is not right. Well, at least there is absolutely no evidence supporting this assertion. We have never witnessed a violation of the conservation of energy. That does not mean it is impossible. Conservation of energy, unlike conservation of momentum, is a root axiom--simply accepted as true. However we can make up random ideas about how energy may not be conserved under certain circumstances all day...M-theory does this...but without some supporting evidence it is little more than technobabble.

If science had not been swayed by Lemaitre and the Catholic Church toward the "Primeval Atom" theory and had instead embraced Fred Hoyle's (a confirmed atheist) "Steady State" theory maybe they wouldn't have gone off chasing the big bang bullshit and become so confused.

Hoyle's steady state theory is demonstrably false in that it fails to account for SEVERAL astronomical predictions that the expanding universe theory predicts with great precision, not the least of which would be that beautiful blackbody curve peaked at 160.4GHtz. Also, atoms certainly seem to exist...well...not as the solid objects they were originally proposed to be but rather as some sort of localized dynamically interfering wave-packets. As of yet their existence really is quite poorly understood. However I would argue that they are as real as anything can be.

If Einstein had known about Dark Energy and Dark Matter (the nothing you speak of) at the time he was factoring in his "cosmological constant" he, along with Hubble and the boys, would not have been so easily swayed and maybe they would have hooked up with Hoyle and the problem would have been solved by now.

Again, Hoyle's theory does not offer any clarification on Dark Energy or Dark Matter. I would guess, and this is just a guess, that the answer to these questions lies in the realm of the very small...rather than the very large. This is one reason why the question has proven so daunting thus far. The people working on the question of Dark Energy and Matter are cosmologist. Quantum mechanics is not their forte, and it will very likely be in the study of the very, very tiny that we begin to discover what the hell matter actually is. I have a feeling that when we understand matter...the question of what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are will be be reduced to an absurdity.

Who is to say. Had it not been for the dark ages I think we likely would have that answer by now as well.

See, I should read the post before responding...I agree with you on this one.

Here is a thought experiment on Einstein's "cosmological constant" ....As you leave one galaxy and move toward the next galaxy you will reach a point where the dark matter is not moving and pushing you toward the center of the galaxy you just left anymore. You then enter an area of dark energy. As you move toward another galaxy,not being pushed in any direction by the dark energy, at some point this galaxy's gravity (dark matter) will begin to push you into it's vortex.

What is it with you and the word vortex:) Is there some kind of sexual fixation with entities having high rotational quanta? I guess I agree...vortexes can be kinda sexy. Try not to put too much stressful thoughts into this Dark Energy/Dark Matter thing. Of course it doesn't make since in it's present form. It is what we call a soft patch over a gaping theoretical hole. One day will will figure it out.

It's like coming out of a whirlpool in the middle of the ocean. When you reach calm water you can float freely until you come close to another whirlpool. Then you will be pushed toward it. The calm water (dark energy) is a buffer between whirlpools (galaxies).

An interesting analogy. I see no actual physical significance or predictive/explanatory power in it however. It's kinda like modeling electric current with water pressure...everything is fine until your system become non-ohmic.

Kevin

[kwlyon]

Ahh...I just read that post more carefully. I thought that was out of context. The Primeval Atom theory is just a name for early renditions of the Big Bang theory. Good to know you are not arguing against the existence of atoms...I was....kinda taken aback by that.

[Savonarola]

I know that guy your talking about and I think he's right.

And I bet that your evidence is no better than his.

If science had not been swayed by Lemaitre and the Catholic Church ....

I'll stop you right here. If you want to argue that science would have suffered a significant setback in cosmology if not for religion, you go ahead and produce that argument; we'll see how far it goes. Science is "swayed" by evidence, and the Big Bang theory has plenty of it in support, while steady state theory doesn't. It's that simple.

If Einstein had known about Dark Energy and Dark Matter...

I'm going to stop you again, because it's clear that you have no idea what these are, either. You use them as mysterious phenomena that you can hijack and pretend produce solutions to the problems with your ideas.

As you move toward another galaxy,not being pushed in any direction by the dark energy, at some point this galaxy's gravity (dark matter) will begin to push you into it's vortex.

Produce evidence that this will happen. Go ahead.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which
the established authorities are wrong." Voltaire

Yet the scientific community would welcome your ideas with open arms if you had evidence for your idea of free energy. You don't. Anybody can write science fiction, and some people can make it sound cool by talking about vortices and dark energy, but it's still fiction.

[graybear13]

Again, Hoyle's theory does not offer any clarification on Dark Energy or Dark Matter. I would guess, and this is just a guess, that the answer to these questions lies in the realm of the very small...rather than the very large. This is one reason why the question has proven so daunting thus far. The people working on the question of Dark Energy and Matter are cosmologist. Quantum mechanics is not their forte, and it will very likely be in the study of the very, very tiny that we begin to discover what the hell matter actually is. I have a feeling that when we understand matter...the question of what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are will be be reduced to an absurdity.

What is it with you and the word vortex:) Is there some kind of sexual fixation with entities having high rotational quanta? I guess I agree...vortexes can be kinda sexy. Try not to put too much stressful thoughts into this Dark Energy/Dark Matter thing. Of course it doesn't make since in it's present form. It is what we call a soft patch over a gaping theoretical hole. One day will will figure it out.Kevin

Hi Kevin,

I think Hoyle was on the right track with his "dynamic life cycle of stars" and, if Einstein had moved in his direction, instead of the church, he would have realized the TOE in his lifetime.

The process is the same for the creation of a galaxy as it is for the creation of an atom. IMHO

gray

[graybear13]

DOUG writes:
Maybe you can explain to us your "reasons" for thinking that the Big Bang theory, which is pretty standard in science, and confirmed by many different avenues, is false.

Hi Doug,

My number one reason is the involvement of the Catholic Church in it's inception. If the Catholic Church was involved It's most likely evil, or at the very least misguided.

Second...everything that is cited as 'proof' can attributed to something else.

It's as if science shot an arrow into the wall and then painted a bull's eye target around it with mathematics and conjecture.

And third...it really doesn't work, does it?

gray