Religion, mammoths and dinosaurs,

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Does this thread give me an excuse to post this?

Yep. Where is this Ship of Fools thread? Sounds interesting...
Edit: Not going to bump it Ducado! ;)

god he's trigger happy...

 

[mcmanus]

Saw the end of the primate programme last night and a bonobo (sp) monkey that looked like a small gorilla was incredible. It collected fire wood stacked it, then opened a box of matches, struck one to light it, got the fire going then put some marshmellows on a stick and cooked them. I was amazed and crying laughing.

Where does he fit in? The clever bastard.

 

[m7mcfc]

Saw the end of the primate programme last night and a bonobo (sp) monkey that looked like a small gorilla was incredible. It collected fire wood stacked it, then opened a box of matches, struck one to light it, got the fire going then put some marshmellows on a stick and cooked them. I was amazed and crying laughing.

Where does he fit in? The clever bastard.

I watched this myself it was absolutely brilliant and quite astonishing the intelligence of some of these primates.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01s0zg9/Monkey_Planet_Master_Minds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... ter_Minds/</a>

 

[Bigga]

Science is diametrically opposed to dogma.

If you cannot see that or understand the scientific method then more fool you.

You can throw in Babylon all you wish but that is hardly modern science. Modern science started in the 16th & 17th Centuries. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it is not science.

That is totally at odds with religion and religious teachings.

You are emphatically dismissing the role of Islam in the 'modern' shake up of biology!! There are religious practitioners in modern medicine, even now. Muslim and Christian doctors exist, don't they?? It is shocking you think both practices cannot co-exist when it's clear they can!

I asked you, earlier, to show me proof that science developed independently away from religious following. You have shown me nothing. In fact, all you have done is chunter on about 'modern science'. I never asked you that. Don't tell me what science 'is'. I asked you to prove the development of science on its own. You cannot, so don't pretend otherwise.

In fact, it's only from around the 18th century the science began to separate itself from religion.

You don't know even know of the history you speak of, correctly.

You are, rather predictably and unsurprisingly, mistaking the role of religion in the genesis of science.

You are stating that as some early natural philosophers were publicly religious, that science was born of religion. This is a false syllogism.

You may as well state that science was born of beards as a large amount of early scientists were hirsute.

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

So yes, I was correct in stating what science is. The search for truth. As I say diametrically opposed to all forms of dogma from your lovely religion. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it's not science. Imagine how far science would have come on without religion acting as an anchor of ignorance.

Your nescience abounds, as usual (you haven't a fucking clue).

Fooking hilarious as usual! I see you've learned to 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia and pass it off as your own 'intellectual' work. Ha!!!!

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

Here's the interesting part, for me anyway...

'Heresy' is described as "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs". That, in itself, merely means that the belief as a whole was that we were the only planet and everything revolved around us. At NO POINT, can I find (nor yourself, quite clearly) any evidence that Galileo denounced religion or a non belief in God!

In fooking fact, Galileo used his " theory of heliocentrism" keep in line with the Scriptures over the flat view of the planet that was written in there.

Sorry, science working in tandem with religious outlook. As I said before, religion and science were NOT independent of each other, in the beginning and even the 'Father of Science Revolution' did not denounce religion and was, to all accounts, a DEVOUT Catholic, I have researched!!

I'm using your main argument against you and you say I have no clue?? You bore me.

Keep on with the insults, you're just making yourself look the royal fooking cnut.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

You are emphatically dismissing the role of Islam in the 'modern' shake up of biology!! There are religious practitioners in modern medicine, even now. Muslim and Christian doctors exist, don't they?? It is shocking you think both practices cannot co-exist when it's clear they can!

I asked you, earlier, to show me proof that science developed independently away from religious following. You have shown me nothing. In fact, all you have done is chunter on about 'modern science'. I never asked you that. Don't tell me what science 'is'. I asked you to prove the development of science on its own. You cannot, so don't pretend otherwise.

In fact, it's only from around the 18th century the science began to separate itself from religion.

You don't know even know of the history you speak of, correctly.

You are, rather predictably and unsurprisingly, mistaking the role of religion in the genesis of science.

You are stating that as some early natural philosophers were publicly religious, that science was born of religion. This is a false syllogism.

You may as well state that science was born of beards as a large amount of early scientists were hirsute.

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

So yes, I was correct in stating what science is. The search for truth. As I say diametrically opposed to all forms of dogma from your lovely religion. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it's not science. Imagine how far science would have come on without religion acting as an anchor of ignorance.

Your nescience abounds, as usual (you haven't a fucking clue).

Fooking hilarious as usual! I see you've learned to 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia and pass it off as your own 'intellectual' work. Ha!!!!

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

Here's the interesting part, for me anyway...

'Heresy' is described as "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs". That, in itself, merely means that the belief as a whole was that we were the only planet and everything revolved around us. At NO POINT, can I find (nor yourself, quite clearly) any evidence that Galileo denounced religion or a non belief in God!

In fooking fact, Galileo used his " theory of heliocentrism" keep in line with the Scriptures over the flat view of the planet that was written in there.

Sorry, science working in tandem with religious outlook. As I said before, religion and science were NOT independent of each other, in the beginning and even the 'Father of Science Revolution' did not denounce religion and was, to all accounts, a DEVOUT Catholic, I have researched!!

I'm using your main argument against you and you say I have no clue?? You bore me.

Keep on with the insults, you're just making yourself look the royal fooking cnut.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, could you clarify?

When you say that science 'developed' from religion, or that the two weren't independent, do you mean that the people who first developed scientific principles were also religious? Or do you mean that those scientific principles developed as a direct consequence of religious principles?

I'm glad you have done research but the fact that many of the initial proponents of the scientific method were Catholics says about as much as if they were vegetarians. You could plausibly argue that their cultural perspective opened the door to the development of their critical and skeptical thinking, but that doesn't imply that what they created is dependent on or even influenced by the culture it came from.

It looks like what you're effectively implying is that correlation is equivalent to causation. Does this fairly reflect your point?

 

[SWP's back]

You are, rather predictably and unsurprisingly, mistaking the role of religion in the genesis of science.

You are stating that as some early natural philosophers were publicly religious, that science was born of religion. This is a false syllogism.

You may as well state that science was born of beards as a large amount of early scientists were hirsute.

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

So yes, I was correct in stating what science is. The search for truth. As I say diametrically opposed to all forms of dogma from your lovely religion. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it's not science. Imagine how far science would have come on without religion acting as an anchor of ignorance.

Your nescience abounds, as usual (you haven't a fucking clue).

Fooking hilarious as usual! I see you've learned to 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia and pass it off as your own 'intellectual' work. Ha!!!!

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

Here's the interesting part, for me anyway...

'Heresy' is described as "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs". That, in itself, merely means that the belief as a whole was that we were the only planet and everything revolved around us. At NO POINT, can I find (nor yourself, quite clearly) any evidence that Galileo denounced religion or a non belief in God!

In fooking fact, Galileo used his " theory of heliocentrism" keep in line with the Scriptures over the flat view of the planet that was written in there.

Sorry, science working in tandem with religious outlook. As I said before, religion and science were NOT independent of each other, in the beginning and even the 'Father of Science Revolution' did not denounce religion and was, to all accounts, a DEVOUT Catholic, I have researched!!

I'm using your main argument against you and you say I have no clue?? You bore me.

Keep on with the insults, you're just making yourself look the royal fooking cnut.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, could you clarify?

When you say that science 'developed' from religion, or that the two weren't independent, do you mean that the people who first developed scientific principles were also religious? Or do you mean that those scientific principles developed as a direct consequence of religious principles?

I'm glad you have done research but the fact that many of the initial proponents of the scientific method were Catholics says about as much as if they were vegetarians. You could plausibly argue that their cultural perspective opened the door to the development of their critical and skeptical thinking, but that doesn't imply that what they created is dependent on or even influenced by the culture it came from.

It looks like what you're effectively implying is that correlation is equivalent to causation. Does this fairly reflect your point?

It does mate. But he is thick as fuck and doesn't understand the distinction.

I made that point when referring to science being born of beards.

He may also wish to have another look at the definition of Heresy. Merriam-Webster should sum it up for him:

her·e·sy
noun \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\

: a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion
plural her·e·sies
Full Definition of HERESY
1
a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy</a>

As I say, he's a fucking idiot if he thinks that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the persecution of early natural philosophers whose observations were at odds to accepted dogmatic scripture.

 

[pominoz]

Here's the interesting part, for me anyway...

'Heresy' is described as "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs". That, in itself, merely means that the belief as a whole was that we were the only planet and everything revolved around us. At NO POINT, can I find (nor yourself, quite clearly) any evidence that Galileo denounced religion or a non belief in God!

In fooking fact, Galileo used his " theory of heliocentrism" keep in line with the Scriptures over the flat view of the planet that was written in there.

Sorry, science working in tandem with religious outlook. As I said before, religion and science were NOT independent of each other, in the beginning and even the 'Father of Science Revolution' did not denounce religion and was, to all accounts, a DEVOUT Catholic, I have researched!!

I'm using your main argument against you and you say I have no clue?? You bore me.

Keep on with the insults, you're just making yourself look the royal fooking cnut.

You seem to be missing the point that nearly all people were religious ( and those that were not, kept their mouths shut, for good reason), until fairly recently.

Religion was all powerful and held back science by century's. Look what happened to Muslim science after the "Golden Age" , when Islamic fundamentalist's , such as Al-Ghazali, gained more influence.

 

[Skashion]

Not exactly a scientific graph is it?

 

[tonea2003]

Not exactly a scientific graph is it?

it is, but take it for what it is, a representation of the repression of free thought as opposed to religious dogma that went on during those times

i suppose that only really beginning of the end came with the coup de grace, the origin of the species

religious belief has been on the decline ever since

 

[Damocles]

Religious fervour motivated numerous scientists or proto-scientists over the last few thousand years.

This doesn't mean that science came out of religion. Philosophy came out of religion (or rather, religion is a branch of philosophy).

Science came about through the natural curiosity of our species, religion through the natural need for answers.

Just a small point on that graph. It's a very Westernised view that; there were huge scientific advances in the world during the Western European "Dark Ages", just in the Middle East and Asia.