A War on science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isambard
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 16
  • Views Views 3K
Status
Not open for further replies.
It was interesting. I'm surprised that you haven't got any replies.

Well on second thought, I'm not surprised.
 
snakelegs said:
it's something i mean to watch, but so far it hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

It is the same ole topic of evolution rehashed to look impressive by the mighty accurate BBC...
it is easy to congregate a group of scientists in a room and have them hammer in the importance of one particular theory.. it loans it credence and authority.. by no means am I stating that it isn't an option, but it is very faulty one and doesn't allow much room for voices that challenge its shortcomings.. in and of itself has become a new religion. Where science fails to correct itself and accept a confutation to the very crux of its hypothesis is when it becomes a religion all its own with its own adherents of quasi-scientists/ zealots peddling in theories as facts!
It makes you wonder out of all the theories in the world, why this one in particular received the most attention?

for simplicity sake, let's take Dr. John Sampson's theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis, seems plausible for all intensive purposes, that blood traveling backwards carrying in its midst endometrial cells, can implant itself in the vicinity, and this endometrial like tissue acts very much like the linning of the uterus, responding to hormones and may shed from where it shouldn't cause various other nuisances to millions of women-- well how does this theory reconcile for women who have retrograde menses but never develop endometriosis? or how does it reconcile it for women who devlop endometriosis in the lung or the nose or the liver, far away from uterine blood? Someone else sits down and challenges the theory, states no it is spread via lymphatics, another says it is iatrogenic due to doctor error, no it is environmental, no cells can naturally morph into others as a result of hormone therapy, no it is auto-immune in origin, no it favors only hispanic women because of genetics.. Do we actually know? we can theorize, and the theories appear very plausible and by folks who have earned their place in the scientific community, but we don't peddle theories as facts and then impugn those who theorize differently...You'd be interested to know that today the theory most people accept is Dr. Sampson's, but the question marks are left in the areas that his theory fails to address!

there is no war here, no conspiracy theories, no monkey waging war speaking on behalf of everybody.. I admit it was a fascinating piece of PR, but it is incredibly pitiful when scientists concede to the same propaganda (ish) Bull ****, that politicians resort to.. There is simply regular folks from all walks of life who can use some abstraction to challenge conventional wisdom and demand better answers from those 'authority sounding figures'!

I'd like to see a documentary on Dr. Sampson and his studies.. or are his studies not sensationalistic enough for the theoretically inerrant and omnicompetent BBC to merit another whopping 50 minute of my time?


cheers
 
Last edited:
I found it quite interesting just how they made it so obvious that ID was nothing more than Creationism repackaged.

I took special mental note that all of science, nothing receives such baseless challenges as evolution.

No one says Gravity is nothing but a theory.

But then isn't God-of-the-gaps a theory?
The odds are so impossibly low, therefore god.

No one used the discovery of Dark Matter as a base for saying that it proved that Astrophysics is a false science.
 
All theories aren't created equal.. perhaps one needs a little bit of background in science to appreciate where the short comings are.
And I believe that has been covered here ad nauseum? -- it would be prudent to search through all the old threads dealing wit the topic and create questions/comments/complaints/backtalk where appropriate, than reinvent a way to recycle the same old topic under a different guise.. the town crier is long asleep and the fanfare has already left...



cheers
 
wilberhum said:
I found it quite interesting just how they made it so obvious that ID was nothing more than Creationism repackaged.

I took special mental note that all of science, nothing receives such baseless challenges as evolution.

No one says Gravity is nothing but a theory.

But then isn't God-of-the-gaps a theory?
The odds are so impossibly low, therefore god.

No one used the discovery of Dark Matter as a base for saying that it proved that Astrophysics is a false science.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh more athiest claptrap from an ignorant childish leftist, Man!! this gets old real fast. Take a hike Wilberhum and go hang at the Richard Dawkins forums with the rest of your godless buddies.
 
Belief_is_Power said:
Ahhhh more athiest claptrap from an ignorant childish leftist, Man!! this gets old real fast. Take a hike Wilberhum and go hang at the Richard Dawkins forums with the rest of your godless buddies.
Click to expand...
It is only superficial idiots that equate evolution to atheism. :?

Why do you think god could not have enough for thought to use evolution as his method? :mmokay:

Is your concept of god a weak unimaginative spirit? :hmm:
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
All theories aren't created equal.. perhaps one needs a little bit of background in science to appreciate where the short comings are.
And I believe that has been covered here ad nauseum? -- it would be prudent to search through all the old threads dealing wit the topic and create questions/comments/complaints/backtalk where appropriate, than reinvent a way to recycle the same old topic under a different guise.. the town crier is long asleep and the fanfare has already left...



cheers
Click to expand...
That really justifies what I was saying. :giggling:
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
does it? I am not seeing it..


cheers
Click to expand...
Of course you don't.

You look at 100 peaces and see one doesn't fit and think that proves the other 99 are misplaced.

When I look at 100 peaces and see one doesn't fit I try to figure out what is different about the one.

Just different approaches I guess.
 
wilberhum said:
Of course you don't.

You look at 100 peaces and see one doesn't fit and think that proves the other 99 are misplaced.

When I look at 100 peaces and see one doesn't fit I try to figure out what is different about the one.

Just different approaches I guess.
Click to expand...

I know.. your outlook is faulty at the crux of the matter!
there is no such thing as 'eh, good enough!' when it comes to science or i'll out with the army of leningrad.. there is the determinate science or the alternative.. until such a time when the theory can cross its T's and dot its I's and I assure you there is much that needs a prolonged intense examination here, then the alternative sounds much more probable!

Try not to jump on every bandwagon as if for a california gold rush!

Anyhow, I don't want to drag or be baited into this topic, it has already gotten a great deal of attention, again, anyone who wants to understand what it wrong with the theory can dig through old threads and read them.. until another atheist comes along to rock our boat...


cheers
 
PA
when the theory can cross its T's and dot its I's
Click to expand...
In science, that will never happen and you know it.

Woodrow once said something like.
Put 10 balls in your hand. Let them go one at a time. Seeing the first nine fall does not prove the tenth one will.

There is no proof and there never will be.
You can chose to ignore all the evidence, that is always a choice.

3 cheers
 
there is no evidence!!! that is the problem, you can showcase bones, that doesn't equate with evidence-- and it isn't reproducible even though we have the technology for it!!! .. time to put the money where the mouth is or quit whining about it!

cheers
 
Last edited:
the simple fact is this thread sat dormant for 5 days with no interest. The only interest being shown is a war zone. please keep all wars in the proper location, like maybe Antarctica or any uninhabited island.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top