Birth control to save the planet
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
The origin of science may have been theology, but it is belittled in the glaring light of science since. Can you guess why?
Because science evolves, theology hasn't. Religion is being left in the dust of antiquity along with the purposes of alchemy, phrenology, and other old "sciences".
Because science evolves, theology hasn't. Religion is being left in the dust of antiquity along with the purposes of alchemy, phrenology, and other old "sciences".
I think you are right about coldstream being in a time warp - inquisitor from the 16th century. I thought born againers were bad. I have only met one other catholic as rabid as coldstream but he was a schizophrenic and had an excuse.
Yes, there's a reason alright, but that's not it. It happened in spite of the church, not because of it. The church has resisted the findings of science at least since Galileo's day, and certain elements of it continue to fight a rearguard action against naturalistic explanations of reality. The fight was lost long ago, but a lot of people haven't figured that out yet, you among them, as your total misapprehension of science in general and evolution in particular shows clearly.
Take a look at the precepts of Superstrings, at the edge of modern Cosmology, the pinnacle of modern physics. It postulates things like multiple dimensions.. 8, 11.. you name it.
It makes little difference to them that human senses can only empirically ascertain 4, if you include time. The aim isn't to produce any useful technology, it is to develop the equation as something of such purity it requires no proof.. it exists simply as an abstract meditation... an idol.
I asked you to name one useful piece of technology, specifically Cosmology has produced since WW2. You won't be able to name one because there are none. The whole thing has become a money pit, with projects like CERN costing billions, to find evermore obsure nanoparticles. The only machines it develops are those designed to confirm their own increasingly insubstantial understanding of the universe.
The whole construct has lost any kind of cohesive framework. It exists in part to EXCLUDE those without advanced math and physics degrees from a position in the priesthood, on which all kinds of awards, titles, tenure, grants are bequeathed. The only thing they really have no use for its patents, because they don't make anything people can use.
Last edited:
The last I heard string theory wasn't even a theory, but an hypothesis. So you are hinging your argument about factual things like advances upon conjecture? lmao
Here read this bit about the difference between laws, theories and hypotheses:
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
You said nothing about cosmology. Quit lying.
I named 4.
Nonsense.
Gibberish.
Last edited:
Coldstream, the only post that contains the word cosmology in this thread is your last one. You can't very well have asked Anna previously and specifically what technologies Cosmology has produced then can you? You move the goal posts like the best of them on this website.
How about you name one useful piece of technology created using theology and no science in the last 50 years.
How about you name one useful piece of technology created using theology and no science in the last 50 years.
A decrease in population has to help, more people - more pollution. Also large animals leave a large carbon footprint, so all those seriously green people have to do their part by cutting down the large pet population.. 
-
-
No you didn't, as others have pointed out, but there is an answer: the Global Positioning System. You've issued that ignorant challenge before and been answered, you just weren't paying attention because then you'd have to change some of your thinking. Here's a more general introduction to more answers, and you can spread out with the links there and learn something useful about reality: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Development Notes
It's a rather peculiar line of argument you've chosen. You criticize science from a position of almost total ignorance using terminology like dogma and priesthood as if they're bad things, yet somehow the church, which actually uses those terms itself, is immune to such criticism. You criticize science as if it were a church, but when the church does what you accuse (wrongly) science of doing, that's somehow okay. There's a very basic illogic in your philosophy. If you're going to fulfil your role as a Christian to make the world better, you'd better understand how it works first.
:roll:, that's quite a well developed argument, Anna. You might be doctoral material.
Nope. I have a bach in anthropology. Would you like to quit sidestepping and get back to the topic now?
The Global Positioning System is NOT a product of Cosmology. It is a developed out of communications and ranging instruments originally developed for military applications.
You miss my point entirely. It's something that is not new. Oswald Spengler developed a theory of the lifespan of civilizations where he noted appearance of a science of pure mysticism and credulity would replace that founded on empiricism and technology.
That is just what has happened in Cosmology. Your example shows that there is plenty of hard technological science still going on, but there has not been a scientific revolution in over 50 years.
We are simply harvesting the benefits of what will likely be the last crop of practical invention, in a declining society. I don't think that needs be inevitable, but it is where we are heading.
Absolutely nothing useful will be developed from Superstrings. But Superstrings has essentially sucked the funding well dry. If you're not in that, you are broke, and you are not getting tenure. That is the state of the world.
Last edited:
General relativity: apparently a communications technology.
Go figure.
What does all this have to do with the carbon footprint of a child?
General and Specific relativity were developed by Einstein, and Quantum Mechanics were applied by Bohr and others in the early 20th Century. That's when they actually still condescended to hold their 'hypotheses' to experiment and proof.
It's all about idols of the modern age i suppose. Global Warming, Superstrings, concoctions from a coven's kettle i suppose. But i get your point. ;-)
Exactly my point. Religions do not produce technology, they are founded in faith and grounded in the metaphysical and supernatural.
Once science takes on the mantle of a religion, though, it is just that, and is no more competent to produce a technology than a Church.
How exactly has climate science taken on the mantle of religion? All their data is reproducible/public. If you want to question it, nobody is stopping you.
So, what. You said notrhing about cosmology to begin with. What you DID say was,
Which is what Tonington, Dexter and I replied to. Then you move the goalposts by specifying cosmology AFTER we replied.
You didn't state your point clearly. Mysticism has no place in science. It has a place in religions. Science is about descriptions of our universe based on evidence, not faith.
Balogna. The latest one I can think of is the one that Darwin wasn't quite accurate about the "tree of life".
Declining? Hardly. Evolving, yes.
Unless you know string hypothesis to be fact along with its ramifications, there's no way you could say that it will produce anything useful. You are not claivoyant. lmao I saw a BC cartoon once. You remind me of one of the characters in it who was viewing another's invention of the wheel and commented, "nothing good will come of this". lmao