Science is Dying.

[lawtonfogle]

This is generalizing. Generalizing is what most people with horrible logic do.

No, generalizing is something all people due to the influx of data we currently have being far to great to process to the extent needed for operation, and how small even this inflow of data is compared to the amount of data which would be needed to never generalize. Unjustified generalization is what people with horrible logic do.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I hope science dies.

Look at everything good it brought us:
Medicines
plastics
gasoline
airplane
and much more.

But why do we need medicines for diseases and cancers?

Science came up with harmful drugs , cancer from pollution , cancer from radiation , war , and much worse.
We didn`t need science in the first place.

To get rid of suffering , technology is required.
But to get technology , you need to make sacrafice in human blood and suffering .

The more we learn , the more dangerous we are.

If we got rid of science right now , there would be no violence.
People would become more religious , and terrorism could be handled more accurately through negotiating , because our religious knowledge would be far greater than our knowledge of weponry .

You do realize that the time when science was most absent from the world was called the dark ages. The number reason technology leads to so many deaths is not because technology is killing us, but because it is allowing us to live long enough for things like cancer to appear.

Anyways, with out technology, you would not have the forensics to catch murders and rapist. Yet, technology does not result in these crimes, as historical records from millenniums before the first appearance of the scientific record detail murder and rape happening.

I almost wish you would get your wish, if only for a short week or so, just so you can see how bad it is.

 

[alexross8]

You do realize that the time when science was most absent from the world was called the dark ages. The number reason technology leads to so many deaths is not because technology is killing us, but because it is allowing us to live long enough for things like cancer to appear.

Anyways, with out technology, you would not have the forensics to catch murders and rapist. Yet, technology does not result in these crimes, as historical records from millenniums before the first appearance of the scientific record detail murder and rape happening.

I almost wish you would get your wish, if only for a short week or so, just so you can see how bad it is.

Cancer comes from cells that are retarded.
Radiation , pollution , chemicals , genes , or even some plastics can cause cancer.

4/5 of the things that cause cancer are because of technology , and the other 1/5 is because technology allowed a cancer infected baby to live .

Technology does in fact result in these crimes.
A morally corrupt person's morals are corrupt.
How easy it is to kill someone these days.
It's even easier , knowing that there is no God to tell you not to.
The main reason crimes are committed , is because there are no moral restraints (religion) because of the fact that science is contantly pushing their false doctrine down our throats.

And if we didn't modernize , there would be no death sentance .
Dogs wouldnt be hit by cars.
People wouldn't be fat.
There would be no 9/11 , because those Muslim terrorists couldn't get on an airplane , because airplanes couldn't have existed.

Lifespans would be short , but people would get more out of life.

If I lived in a 2010 without the modern technologies , I am sure it would be very nice.

 

[Papias]

.....


.
...


..


...
..... waiting for Alexross8 to practice what he preaches by giving up use of the computer, stripping naked and going to live in the jungle to escape from that evil technology demon........


....


....

..
.

....
..



... Not yet?..... Oh yeah, and waiting for some reason to believe this statement:



Alex wrote:

4/5 of the things that cause cancer are because of technology , and the other 1/5 is because technology allowed a cancer infected baby to live .

...
.
..


.

.
.Oh yeah, and for Alex to explain why the less religious contries like those in Europe have lower crime rates than the more religious united states, after he said this:

The main reason crimes are committed , is because there are no moral restraints (religion) because of the fact that science is contantly pushing their false doctrine down our throats.

....
.


.



.


.


..


....


Papias, waiting....

 

[lawtonfogle]

Cancer comes from cells that are retarded.
Radiation , pollution , chemicals , genes , or even some plastics can cause cancer.

1, 2, 3, and 4 are not the results of technology. Oh yes, technology makes more of it, but they existed before technology.

4/5 of the things that cause cancer are because of technology

Wrong.

, and the other 1/5 is because technology allowed a cancer infected baby to live .

Wrong again.

Please, go learn about what cancer is. Then you will see that every day you live, you have an increased chance of getting cancer. Thus living longer means higher chance of cancer. We are not talking about those born with cancer.

Technology does in fact result in these crimes.
A morally corrupt person's morals are corrupt.
How easy it is to kill someone these days.
It's even easier , knowing that there is no God to tell you not to.
The main reason crimes are committed , is because there are no moral restraints (religion) because of the fact that science is contantly pushing their false doctrine down our throats.

Science is completely separate from morality. Anyone who uses science for their form of morality is an idiot. That being said, science can inform our morality, by telling us if X is really dangerous or really good, but science is in no way a form of morality.

Anyways, what about the teaching that you can go commit what ever crimes you want, and you will be forgiven and live in a perfect paradise anyways? That really would increase the crime rate, no?

And if we didn't modernize , there would be no death sentance .
Dogs wouldnt be hit by cars.

Yeah, they would just be hit by buggies.

People wouldn't be fat.

Wrong.

There would be no 9/11 , because those Muslim terrorists couldn't get on an airplane , because airplanes couldn't have existed.

Terrorist would still be doing terrorism, they would just be using old fashion explosives.

Lifespans would be short , but people would get more out of life.

Not really, every day would be a fight to survive, and many people would be losing it slowly.

If I lived in a 2010 without the modern technologies , I am sure it would be very nice.

No it wouldn't. There wouldn't even be a spear for you to go out hunting with.

 

[Znex]

No not really. There is a bunch of new stuff that people with a confirmation bias can use to jump to conclusions, but not actual evidence. One could say it is almost insulting to fit God into the box which is required for evidence to be valid for.

Oh really? Obviously you haven't read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

 

[laconicstudent]

Cancer comes from cells that are retarded.

*head implodes*



No.... actually, Cancer comes from cells in which the DNA has mutated to a large degree, to the point where a significant number of "stop" codons have been deleted.

Radiation , pollution , chemicals , genes , or even some plastics can cause cancer.

Yes, but not all radiation, all pollution, all chemicals and all genes or all plastics are carcinogenic or risk factors.

4/5 of the things that cause cancer are because of technology , and the other 1/5 is because technology allowed a cancer infected baby to live .

Citation please.

Technology does in fact result in these crimes.

Citation please.

A morally corrupt person's morals are corrupt.

A blue sky is blue? What are you trying to say?

How easy it is to kill someone these days.

Just about as easy as it was a thousand years ago. Frankly, I don't think it gets any easier then swinging an edged piece of metal and making a transverse incision in someone's neck.

It's even easier , knowing that there is no God to tell you not to.

What does this have to do with technology?

The main reason crimes are committed , is because there are no moral restraints (religion) because of the fact that science is contantly pushing their false doctrine down our throats.

Oh look. Questionable Cause fallacy.

Fallacy: Questionable Cause

And if we didn't modernize , there would be no death sentance .

Doubtful considering we've been using the death sentence since several thousand years before Christ. Even God advocates its use quite frequently.

Dogs wouldnt be hit by cars.

Because we wouldn't have cars....

People wouldn't be fat.

Doubtful. A lot more people would be dying of starvation, however.

There would be no 9/11 , because those Muslim terrorists couldn't get on an airplane , because airplanes couldn't have existed.

Yes. Its unlikely that they would have found any other method of killing us.

Lifespans would be short , but people would get more out of life.

I'm sorry, but you have got to be kidding me. This is really borderline offensive.

If I lived in a 2010 without the modern technologies , I am sure it would be very nice.

Actually, it would really suck. If you want to live a primitivist lifestyle, would you please cancel your internet service and start walking your talk.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh. And without those modern technologies you sneer at, I would have died at birth, so you'll have to forgive me if I am annoyed that you would make such a thoughtless assertion in claiming we would be better off without.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Oh really? Obviously you haven't read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

Actually I have. I have read his three main books actually.

 

[Znex]

Actually I have. I have read his three main books actually.

Then go back and read them again.

 

[alexross8]

[Content Erased]

 

[alexross8]

No.... actually, Cancer comes from cells in which the DNA has mutated to a large degree, to the point where a significant number of "stop" codons have been deleted.

I didn't mean retarded , as in slow.
I can't ever think of that word .. it starts with " M "

Yes, but not all radiation, all pollution, all chemicals and all genes or all plastics are carcinogenic or risk factors.

Radiation will decay things.
Decaying is bad , all of the time.
Pollution is made of chemicals or substances in the air , which can definitely cause death.
Chemicals , even juice , can cause damage. Ever heard of H2O Poisoning? Our body is made of water , yet you can get sick from drinking too much.
Genes will always change , and will be a risk.
Plastics are made of synthetic/semi-synthetic materials , which can definitely cause harm if dust particles inhaled or swallowed.
Most toys for children are cleaned very much , but plastics will always be a risk .

A blue sky is blue? What are you trying to say?

What I am saying , is that things that corrupt people , will make them morally corrupt.
Ever heard of the saying "Absolute power corrupts Absolutely"?
Since power moally corrupts people , peope would be better off without power.

Oh look. Questionable Cause fallacy .

Science convinces people that there is no god , or it convinces them that all religions are false.
That is a well known fact.
Why do you think Darwin left the church?
Science told Darwin that there is no need for God. Evolution is constantly mixed with abiogenesis.
If science couldn't convince anyone that there is no god , then there would be no big bang theory , but there is.

Doubtful considering we've been using the death sentence since several thousand years before Christ. Even God advocates its use quite frequently.

Jesus didn't stone an adulterer , because he wanted to show exmple that mankind is not the judge.
If God said it is ok to stone someone to death , then it is , but no one should do it unless there is a holy judgement.
That is what is written , and that is what would be obeyed by a society that lived without science.

Because we wouldn't have cars...

Exactly .
No cars , no pullution , no doggies getting hit , and definitely no drunk drivers , or accidents involving cars at all.

Doubtful. A lot more people would be dying of starvation, however.

The richmen of a more religious society would be willing togive to the poor.
The poor would always be fed , because the fields would always be plowed by people who are humble enough to be in an honest profession , instead of being a gambler , banker ,lawyer , or tax collector.

Yes. Its unlikely that they would have found any other method of killing us.

I sense sarcasm.
Anyway , they would have swords.
But since there would be no bombs of mass destruction or guns , numbers would easily silence terrorists at their doorsteps.
There wouldn't even be terrorists , since the middle east would have been converted in a flash.

I'm sorry, but you have got to be kidding me. This is really borderline offensive.

Offensive how?
If our faith was great enough , death wouldn't scare us.
Death doesn't scare me , because I have faith.
Like I said , people would get more out of life .
I would rather work out in the field , than be a couch potato for all my life.

Actually, it would really suck. If you want to live a primitivist lifestyle, would you please cancel your internet service and start walking your talk.

Whats done is done.
I can't live in a world without scientific advancements , because we already do live in one.

 

[Biblewriter]

The one thing that impressed me in the discussions about climategate was the oft repeated assertion that this was totally unprecedented in the history of science. That often repeated statement is totally incorrect.

Those of us in the scientific community that do not accept evolution as "fact" have long known that the same prejudice shown by warmers against deniers has been standard practice in the scientific community for many years now.

While my university professor publicly raged against my lack of faith in evolution, he privately was telling his trusted lab assistant (whom I happened to be dating) that evolution was actually not a very good explanation of the facts, it was just the best one we had.

I could go on for many pages about how I have seen (and sometimes felt) this prejudice in my scientific career. This has gone all the way from mocking to actual discharge from positions for no greater crime than admitting a lack of faith in that all powerful god, evolution.

My organization employed nearly five hundred scientists, and its president once told me I was not only the best one he had, but the best one he had ever known. But I was required to sign a document stating that I realized I would be fired if I shared my faith with anyone who was in any way connected with my employment.

So don't try to tell me that evolution is based on proven science. Its acceptance is based on systematic suppression of dissent. There is a great amount of scientific evidence against this theory, but it is systematically glossed over and ignored.

 

[Melethiel]

Ever heard of H2O Poisoning? Our body is made of water , yet you can get sick from drinking too much.

Do you know why drinking too much water can kill you? Hint: it's NOT because water is poisonous. H2O Poisoning is really a misnomer. Too much water can kill you because it dilutes the sodium in your extracellular fluid, this creating an osmotic force that drives water into cells. Normally not a problem, but when this happens inside an enclosed space such as the skull, this results in brain swelling. Brain swelling leads to brain herniation, which leads to death.

Unless, of course, you don't have technology. Then you'll just get cholera from your dirty water.

And of course people would be fat, and starve. Sounds like you've never read history...and they do say that people who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. Just read the book of Judges, describing the Bronze Age near east...they certainly didn't have much technology, and yet there were fat people and starving people.

Also, do you know that when the Big Bang theory was first espoused, it was rejected by the mainstream scientific community, because it was too close to creation for comfort? The mainstream idea at the time was that of an eternal universe. The Big Bang eventually became accepted because of the evidence.

Finally, I really want to know why you're using a computer.

 

[Sphinx777]

.

.​

 

[jpcedotal]

Pure science is a thing of the past. Now, everything is based on who is writing the checks and what outcome these folks want.

Science turned into a political tool and is not far from becoming a religion.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
If we got rid of science right now , there would be no violence.
People would become more religious , and terrorism could be handled more accurately through negotiating , because our religious knowledge would be far greater than our knowledge of weponry .

Wasn't the first Murder due to Religion(who's sacrifice was accepted), not Science ?

 

[Skaloop]

Pure science is a thing of the past. Now, everything is based on who is writing the checks and what outcome these folks want.

Yeah, and religion isn't like that at all.

Science turned into a political tool and is not far from becoming a religion.

It's quite far from it, actually.

 

[laconicstudent]

Lol. Science is not "dying"

 

[pgp_protector]

Lol. Science is not "dying"

True, though I don't think Science was ever Alive to boot.
Can one be charged with murder if they killed Science ?