What's so funny? Where exactly do computers make use of relativity or quantum mechanics?



Kind of case in point of "faith in science".

>empirical evidence
>theoretical physics

ever heard of a transistor?

the effects of what we call dark matter and dark energy are regularly observed using empirical methods

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 10 2013 02:14am

There is a lot of dogma in science, the true-believers will usually look past it though and fall-back on their faith.

Good little closeted Christians, I call 'em.

Boldfaced: Then I fail to see what the issue is here. Both types of study show that people cling to more absolute beliefs when facing hardship. You said this yourself. Therefore, science can also be taken in faith. I believe you are not taking this into account simply because of your bias towards science.

There are plenty of priests who take the bible as the answer and then look for ways of verifying it instead of doing it the other way around. It dosen't matter if there are people who are philosophers with a degree in theology, which is why I had said that there can be faith in science, and that science is not purely analytical and empirical as though faith is its antithesis. Sure, they can 'distinguish', but those who have only scientific beliefs while throwing out the religious beliefs will rely upon whatever allows them to take absolute belief, and, therefore, faith is possible to have in science.

There is plenty of evidence that exists that shows that dark matter and dark energy are unnecessary, and they are phantasms, as we cannot see them except through gravitational lensing and redshift effects, respectively. There have been so many anomalous indications in the big bang theory that they keep on having to patch it up. Want to know what that is? Fairie dust: Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. We came up with dark matter because we couldn't explain how galaxies can rotate so fast with the observed mass of the arms. Instead of re-examining our assumptions when it comes to outer space and the physics involved, we instead came up with dark matter which has NEVER been empirically verified, and we have not seen a candidate for dark matter in particle accelerators yet. There are a ton of theoretical models for dark matter. Which one is empirically verified? Which one gives the correct particle? As for dark energy, it violates conservation of energy, and it has no backing except for the fact that we truly do not understand what redshift is.

...more than once I have seen the non-religious post about their hope that medical science will eventually conquer death and grant them immortality including one regular on this forum . I don't see this as anything but an example of science as a religion .

Hahaha. How ironic. You deny this because of your religion. You believe in an immortal soul that would invalidate making people immortal in your eyes.

...I believe in the resurrection of the body in a glorified immortal state . I don't deny science will one day defeat death because of my religion , I deny it because no matter what science comes up with the human body will always be subject to destruction hence it can never be immortal .

Who says we need our bodies?

I'm not even going to bother. Feel free to look up gerontology, life-extension, geriatrics, biology, and transhumanism and you might actually understand. It is possible, you are just hiding behind a supposedly scientific (actually incredibly naive) statement a religious motivation.