Replies to post #137728 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[CoalTrain]

Science does not concern itself with the unprovable`

Tell that to Peter Duesburg

Duesberg started questioning HIV in 1987. He claims there is no virological, nor epidemiological, evidence to back-up the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Instead, the virus is biochemically inactive and harmless, and AIDS is not behaving as a contagious disease, he says.


http://www.duesberg.com/about/index.html

True or false:

The big bang theory is based on an assumption.


What you describe as "science" is unfortunately something from an era gone by. The few real scientists ( for example Gilbert Ling, Peter Duesburg, Raymond Damadian who invented MRI.

http://www.fonar.com/nobel.htm

How can Raymond Damadian be bypassed for an award on MRI?
Dr. Damadian has already been credited with the discovery of MRI!)

of today would either describe current day vodoo science as a religion or would rant and rave about corruption.
For the public to not be able to follow Duesburgs medical Ideas is one thing. For them to not figure out that the guy that invented MRI should not be passed up for a nobel prize for MRI when other people get them is another story alltogether. Science is corrupted in much the same way as religion in spite of the fact that most fools howl loudly to the contrary.

[mlsoft]

ergo...

"Secular Humanism is not a religion. That is one of the dumbest arguments out there. It may be a belief system but it does not worship. It has none of the attributes of a religion."

No?? Secular humanism is a systematic belief system that values man's opinion above all things and sees man as the end of all things. Thus man worships (ascribes worth to) himself (mankind) and places no other being above man, who is answerable only to himself. Sounds like a religion to me.


"Science is merely a system of proofs. Science does not concern itself with the unprovable. One version of reality posits a first mover, many scientists believe in a first mover. What you want is to negate the very principles of scientific study. Only someone like you who denies the existence of time as defined by science sees science as a threat to your belief system."

If science is a system of proofs, why is evolution considered a scientific fact?? It has never been proven to be true, and never will be proven to be true. There is not one single verifiable example of evolution from one species to another -- none. It is neither reproducible nor verifiable. But somehow it is a scientific fact, accepted by all as real fact. Something is wrong here.

You say that science does not concern itself with the unprovable and that allows them to automatically dismiss out of hand anything having to do with God or the supernatural. I go back to my example of earlier today -- You have a question with 3 possibly valid answers, one of which is correct. You automatically dismiss one of the possibly valid answers because it is unprovable, leaving you with only 2 possible answers, but now both of them could be wrong. If the first answer turns out to be the correct one, you will never find out because you dismissed it out of hand. Welcome to the dark ages, volume two.

mlsoft