Science vs Christianity

[Whatsisface]

Another fallacy (appeal to ignorance). You don't know what I have and haven't studied.

I see a fellow Christian has liked at least two of your recent posts. Why don't you ask him what his expertise in evolution is based on?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Okay, so what is your point? I am not claiming scientists are never corrupt; I am sure some are. But the overall process is one of progress towards truth, because the corrupt are not that many, and are are pulling in different directions, and there are checks in place.

My point wasn't that scientists are corrupted but rather much of science has been corrupted. If science is being done in a capacity which isn't politically or financially advantageous to corrupt it remains intact due to the checks in place, but if is advantageous those checks are quickly and easily removed by the authority, either political (Fauci) or financial (Pharmaceutical corporations and hospitals). So the argument that those checks are of much significance to the integrity of science isn't a particularly strong one.

And yet look at all the technology around you that is built on that science. The fact that we are communicating across the world is testament to the success of science.

Science is the study of structure and behavior of natural and physical world, to create premises. In contrast, technology deals with putting those premises into practice. Science is concerned with analysis, deduction and theory development. On the other hand, technology is based on analysis and synthesis of design.

Just because technology puts scientific principles into design doesn't mean science is responsible for it, it just means we can understand it to some extent using the method of investigation that is science. The modern day fundamentalists militant atheist tends to think of science in a utopian futuristic science fiction fashion, pitting science against religion with the hopes that religious thought be replaced by scientific thought. This is not only impractical but illogical as well.

But Answers In Genesis is representative of a lot of Christians - especially on CARM. You may not like that, but it is true.

I don't like that fact and it is true. My point was that if you want to use it to represent Christianity you shouldn't, unless you want to demonstrate how it represents Christianity gone has wrong. Like I wouldn't think to be so foolish to provide it as a representation of science as I've seen some do.

I know what it means. That is why I used it.

To the believer it doesn't seem that you do know what it means because the unbelievers, such as yourself, seem to suggest that science is, in fact inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. It's fairly myopic circular reasoning. If science says it's true or untrue then it must be so unless science changes it's mind. So, if the Bible says we were created, science doesn't really have anything to say about the appearance of life. Why would it object? If it has objection to a global deluge then the Bible can't possibly be right about that, is that correct?

This is why believers doggedly cling to the opinion that science has become the religion of atheism, or at least the god of the atheistic religion. It isn't as far fetched as it may seem to you.

And yet despite the corruption, science gives us all the technology we take for granted today.

Such as? Personal Computers? The Internet? The Web? Cell phones? Toilets? Chemical and biological weapons? Which scientists created those things? I saw a commercial the other day for dog food. "Science did that!" it said. It doesn't mean anything, you see? If an apple falls on my head it doesn't do that because science can explain why or how it possibly may do that and I don't need science to tell me to watch out for falling apples under an apple tree. Do you understand what I'm saying?

What do televanglists give us? Empty pockets.

If we deserve empty pockets, which we would if we were foolish enough to empty them for televangelists, yes. But they can be useful in other ways. Apparently prostitution often benefits from their patronage. Entertainment and amusement, construction jobs for the odd and/or vulgar infrastructure they erect. Perhaps you could do a scientific study on the matter? They also make it abundantly clear that religion can be extremely corrupted and false. One could say that Anthony Fauci is the televangelist of modern day science.

There seems to be a huge issue with the pharmaceutical industry in the US. How true it is I do not know, but it does seem to be an especially US problem (I guess a product of the healthcare situation). I do not live in the US, so cannot comment.

Well, it seems to be more profound, perhaps, in the US, but it's a global domination due to political and financial incentives. The UK is pretty similar in that regard to the US. The robber barons, like Rockefeller and Carnage that funded the development of the medical paradigm in the US and China through their quasi-philanthropic efforts - eugenics for example - have a global impact. Eugenics unpopularized by the Nazis and more recently the Gates' foundation's infiltration of more undeveloped or poorer countries with harmful vaccines. But, I digress.

He was trying to handle a situation where nobody knew what was going to happen, so no, he did not deal with facts.

His strategy for managing the pandemic was to suppress viral spread by mandatory masking, social distancing, quarantining the healthy (lockdowns), while instructing patients to return home and do nothing until difficulties in breathing sent them back. The approach had no public health precedent and anemic scientific support. Fauci knew what he was doing. He had done the same thing in the 1980s with AIDS. Health officials in the US have been following the same playbook since at least the early 1900s. The fabrication and/or manipulation of alleged pandemic to sell vaccines and/or expensive medications because the inexpensive ones aren't profitable. Especially, as always seems the case with Fauci, when the drugs are deadly. AZT with aides and Remdesivir with Covid.

So, you proclaim or exaggerate a pandemic that either doesn't exist or is relatively innocuous to frighten the population into getting vaccines they don't need. Vaccines are attenuated disease, so then the effects of the vaccine are misconstrued as evidence for the disease. Or you monopolize expensive and profitable medications. Particularly effective if the medication is killing what the alleged pandemic is blamed for.

Why do you say science is theoretical because it's supposed to be?

Is it not true?

It is not that there is no evidence, but that the evidence tells us there was no global flood. And I know plenty of Christians have no problem with believing it never happened.

Irrelevant. Plenty of Christians are mistaken about many things. The evidence tells us there was no global flood? That seems nonsensical to me. How does evidence tell you something didn't happen? And even if it did wouldn't that be interpretive? Conjectural? Even if it wasn't science corrects itself so may be wrong. Are you being dogmatic?

I'm not particularly interested in what science says. If "science" announced they discovered God tomorrow I wouldn't be impressed because gods have been known throughout history, they aren't anything special, and because I don't have faith in science. While God may exist, and I have faith he does, it wouldn't mean anything to me that science had "discovered" him.

My critical position isn't anti-science. Being critical of something, as I am with Christianity as well as science, doesn't mean I'm against it.

I am not sure quite what you are arguing for here. What emails? Climate change is real, and the fact that scientists across the world agree on that should alert you to that. They are not all getting money to say that.

Yes they are. You should watch the videos I posted. It isn't a question of climate change being real, there's no doubt about that. The emails I mentioned are discussed in the video I posted here. I don't blame you for ignoring those as they aren't in support of your argument, but it was disclosed to the media here in the states that climate change scientists bullied scientists who disagreed. That's at 3:27 in the first video.

Quite the opposite - it looks to me like big corporations, like oil companies, would be far more willing to pay scientists to say it is fraud.

You should look more closely. Sometimes things aren't as they might appear or as we might think they would appear. The "climate change" or "global warming" agenda is very profitable for those corporations and they endorse it heavily. It's also very politically beneficial.

And it is worth pointing out there is a strong correlation between creationism and climate denial. I am not sure quite why, but both are anti-science, and, I suspect, both bring in a lot of cash for some people who see the ignorant rubes as a good source of cash.

Yeah. The rubes who profit from it are corporations, including the corporate sponsored legacy media, science, and politics. @Gus Bovona points out, rightly, that it isn't the responsibility of "science" to dictate or judge how science is to be used, but the same could be said of God with Christianity.

[Part 1 of 2]

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Again, not sure what you are saying.

There's was a lot to unpack there. I was saying that both sides of every argument have their own spin, motive, and evidence. Being truly critical is more and more important in a time where everything seems politicized by ideologues and therefore potentially corruptible. To the believers, at least to me as I can only speak for myself, the science vs christianity debate when contemplating faith often seems extremely idiosyncratic. As if faith is only a bad thing, non existent in practice to science. The entire scientific methodology is faith based. Based on faith. You don't define a problem, make observations, form hypothesis, conduct experiments and draw conclusions without faith. You don't explore, discover or investigate without applying faith continually. With science it just isn't faith in a god. Rightly so.

Put simply, ideological discussions tend to be black and white. Two sides of the same coin. We think the sky is blue. True, but outside right now, here, it's gray and white. In a matter of hours it will be black with white specks. Just before becoming a believer (27) I realized that I had a very slight blue/green color blindness. A car I describes as green everyone else described as blue. It was blue, but to me it looked green. Now I know certain light shades of blue appear green to me.

Science is a method of investigation, but it is also the body of knowledge that has resulted from that, and that is the sense I have been using. Technology is the application of that body of knowledge, and is visible all around - that computer in front of you for example.

Yes, but as I was pointing out the knowledge isn't responsible for the thing. The Wright brothers were viciously attacked by then science even after they accomplished mechanical flight. Ignaz Semmelweis was basically assassinated for inadvertently applying the knowledge that wasn't yet scientifically known. The computer I use was developed by a couple college dropouts in their parent's garage, the Internet by the US army, the Web (basically HTML like I use on my website) was developed by Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN. Gravity wasn't invented by science, it was discovered by science, then that knowledge was used, as Gus pointed out, however it will. Taking credit for scientific knowledge in such a general way, seems to me rather like giving credit to the Bible for not lying or murdering.

I am not going to tell you exactly, but electronics is founded in physics. Every chemical used to make every computer and switch requires chemistry; LCD displays use particularly clever chemistry, for example. There is even going to be geology involved in laying cables.

Yes, but that may be as relevant to this discussion as the fact that Christianity invented science, Islam preserved much of the knowledge that had been acquired and chemistry came from alchemy. I'm not particularly conversant with geology but archeology is considerably interpretive.

[Part 2 of 2]

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

It's hardly an answer.

Did you not read my reply?

You seem to not understand. If the evidence was good for this alternative, I would be compelled to believe it, not choose it. But it isn't.

I see God's craftmanship in the world around me; in the trees, the animals, my children and grandchildren. So, irrespective of your refusal to see it is there for those who look.

Yes I do, next to nothing. By all means prove me wrong.

Such hubris. Sad for you.

This is naïve. No. If Christianity were the criteria for disqualification as scientists then the Christian scientists who do believe in evolution etc would be disqualified. But they aren't.

Those who embrace this humanistic theory have their own conscience to consider. As for me, I'm good.

You're not showing that they have.

Seek and you will find.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I see a fellow Christian has liked at least two of your recent posts. Why don't you ask him what his expertise in evolution is based on?

Don't ask me to do your work for you.

 

[Whatsisface]

Don't ask me to do your work for you.

I can tell you now, he has none. And yet he thinks he knows enough to like your posts against evolution. Do you think that's rational?

 

[Whatsisface]

Did you not read my reply?

It was hardly a reply. Did you not understand mine?

I see God's craftmanship in the world around me; in the trees, the animals, my children and grandchildren. So, irrespective of your refusal to see it is there for those who look.

What counts are the reasons you think it, but yet again you haven't given any.

Such hubris. Sad for you.

This doesn't prove me wrong.

Those who embrace this humanistic theory have their own conscience to consider. As for me, I'm good.

This, yet again, doesn't reply to the point in my post.

Seek and you will find.

Classic confirmation bias set up.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Others = other scientists who might and often do challenge what any one scientist claims.

This is true, and it should also apply to everything. Peer review can easily turn into peer pressure. When you depend upon funding - well, c'mon.

It's still a positive thing. Everyone should have full knowledge of the risks and benefits.

A very positive thing. It's the only place you can truly trust the pharmaceutical.

Discovering knowledge, which is the goal of science, is separate from how that knowledge might be used by others.

That's a very good point. And true, but what is the goal of Christianity and how surprising is it that it has failed miserably?

We can genetically modify organisms, and it's not the scientists who discovered how to do that that need to decide when and where that is a Good Thing and when and where that is a Bad Thing.

Agreed.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

I can tell you now, he has none. And yet he thinks he knows enough to like your posts against evolution. Do you think that's rational?

Again, don't ask me to do your work.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

It was hardly a reply. Did you not understand mine?

Clearly you didn't understand mine, by choice.

What counts are the reasons you think it, but yet again you haven't given any.

So you say.

This doesn't prove me wrong.

It doesn't prove me wrong either.

This, yet again, doesn't reply to the point in my post.

Yes it does. It points out your hubris.

Classic confirmation bias set up.

Actually it was good advice.

 

[Lucian]

I'm not sure why you think it's naive.

Just to have some examples in front of us, here's a list of some early scientific discoveries:

Scientific Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The list I linked above includes, for instance, heliocentrism, the circulation of the blood, the theory of magnetism, the discovery of microbes, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws.

Do you think these are not examples of "science alter[ing] its views to preserve its observations," or do you think they're not representative of how science works?

I think such a characterisation is heavily idealised. I can only recommend Kuhn, who comments on almost all of those 'discoveries' (a curious term!) at length.

 

[Lucian]

The reference was for clarification, not as a solution. It's all about the finger-pointing and deflection. That's the whole take-away for me. There has been nothing gained in this effort in futility. I have not lost my faith in the Creator and His omnipotence and omniscience, and no atheist has decided they are wrong about evolution. The only thing that has truly been confirmed is those of us who refuse to accept the humanistic declaration of evolution are painted as, well, basically morons. But that's ok. I enjoy the back and forth.

I think you're missing my point. This was that the quotation from Romans was not about atheists at all, but rather about those we would now call 'pagans'. Atheists were of scant concern to Christians in the first century, since almost nobody was one. Indeed, Christians and atheists were in the second century lumped together as impious by polytheists.

 

[Whatsisface]

Again, don't ask me to do your work.

I didn't ask you to.

 

[Whatsisface]

Clearly you didn't understand mine, by choice.

So you say.

It doesn't prove me wrong either.

Yes it does. It points out your hubris.

Actually it was good advice.

Contentless.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Because of published data that some medicines are actually efficacious and safe for the intended purpose of treating disease. Because I use them in daily practice and see the effectiveness of them. Seriously, you are boring asking such base questions.

Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, which is a department of the National Institutes of Health, funded a 2018-2019 study for treatment of Ebola virus in Africa. It used Remdesivir along with three other therapeutics.

Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. Source: New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019

Hospitals get 20% bonus (total $3200) for prescribing lethal Remdesivir compared to the safe inexpensive alternative Ivermectin, which only pays them $125. Source: CMS.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So the medical establishment, hospitals in the USA, are being payed off to prescribe Remdesivir, which isn't effective or safe, instead of prescribing the inexpensive effective treatment. The link below lists Ivermectin is approved by the NIH. Hospitals don't want you to know that. So, not surprisingly many doctors don't.

NIH Approved Treatments of Covid-19

Move on. You are spinning your wheels litigating old news. Nobody cares about chloroquine unless they live in sub-Sahara Africa.

COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study Martin Scholz, Roland Derwand, Vladimir Zelenko Conclusions: Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths. (Source/ Source)

Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis “results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.” (Source)

Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: A done and dusted situation? “the use of hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin was associated with a 66% reduction in risk of death as compared to controls. Our results are remarkably similar to those shown by Arshad et al.” (Source)

Hydroxychlorquine and azithromycin as a treatment of Covid-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents “our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.” (Source)

 

[Caroljeen]

Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, which is a department of the National Institutes of Health, funded a 2018-2019 study for treatment of Ebola virus in Africa. It used Remdesivir along with three other therapeutics.

Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. Source: New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019

Hospitals get 20% bonus (total $3200) for prescribing lethal Remdesivir compared to the safe inexpensive alternative Ivermectin, which only pays them $125. Source: CMS.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So the medical establishment, hospitals in the USA, are being payed off to prescribe Remdesivir, which isn't effective or safe, instead of prescribing the inexpensive effective treatment. The link below lists Ivermectin is approved by the NIH. Hospitals don't want you to know that. So, not surprisingly many doctors don't.

NIH Approved Treatments of Covid-19



COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study Martin Scholz, Roland Derwand, Vladimir Zelenko Conclusions: Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths. (Source/ Source)

Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis “results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.” (Source)

Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 disease: A done and dusted situation? “the use of hydroxycholoroquine + azithromycin was associated with a 66% reduction in risk of death as compared to controls. Our results are remarkably similar to those shown by Arshad et al.” (Source)

Hydroxychlorquine and azithromycin as a treatment of Covid-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents “our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.” (Source)

I've never seen anyone with Covid 19 at the hospital where I work treated with Hydroxychloroquine.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I've never seen anyone with Covid 19 at the hospital where I work treated with Hydroxychloroquine.

The FLCCC is a good source for information on HCQ and Ivermectin; Prevention (chronic/post exposure); early treatment and recovery, long Covid and post vaccine. I highly recommend watching the video I linked to. Especially regarding successful treatment and prevention beginning at the 1:00:00 (1 hour mark). Of course, as they say: "The information in this document is our recommended approach to COVID-19 based on the best (and most recent) literature. It is provided as guidance to healthcare providers worldwide on the early treatment of COVID-19. Patients should always consult with their provider before starting any medical treatment. New medications may be added and/or changes made to doses of existing medications as further evidence emerges."

I don't know about your specific experience, of course, but there could be a variety or reasons. Off brand medication, though prior to the pandemic were encouraged, during it was not. For profit. Early treatment and prevention were not practiced or reported. Dr. Kory discusses briefly some remarkably successful stories outside of the US in the video around the 1 hour mark. Also, Ivermectin and HCQ were used not only as preventative but also outpatient. As well as early treatment being absolutely crucial, wasn't practiced by hospitals.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, which is a department of the National Institutes of Health, funded a 2018-2019 study for treatment of Ebola virus in Africa. It used Remdesivir along with three other therapeutics.

Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. Source: New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019

That study merely measured the efficacy of Remdesivir for treating Ebola, and found that it was worse than the other treatments it studied. It didn't say that Remdesivir itself caused the mortality rate. Obviously, if a drug is not effective against a lethal disease, you will see mortalities when that drug is administered.

If you can find a place in that study that says that it was the Remdesivir itself that caused the mortalities, as opposed to its relative lack of effectiveness against fighting Ebola, please quote it.

Furthermore, that study does not say that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. If you can find a place in that study that says that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure, please quote it.

Hospitals get 20% bonus (total $3200) for prescribing lethal Remdesivir compared to the safe inexpensive alternative Ivermectin, which only pays them $125. Source: CMS.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So the medical establishment, hospitals in the USA, are being payed off to prescribe Remdesivir, which isn't effective or safe, instead of prescribing the inexpensive effective treatment. The link below lists Ivermectin is approved by the NIH. Hospitals don't want you to know that. So, not surprisingly many doctors don't.

NIH Approved Treatments of Covid-19

Assuming you are talking about prescribing Remdesivir for Covid, what does the lack of effectiveness of Remdesivir for Ebola have to do with the effectiveness of Remdesivir for Covid?

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Contentless.

So you claim...

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

That study merely measured the efficacy of Remdesivir for treating Ebola, and found that it was worse than the other treatments it studied. It didn't say that Remdesivir itself caused the mortality rate. Obviously, if a drug is not effective against a lethal disease, you will see mortalities when that drug is administered.

If you can find a place in that study that says that it was the Remdesivir itself that caused the mortalities, as opposed to its relative lack of effectiveness against fighting Ebola, please quote it.

Furthermore, that study does not say that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure. If you can find a place in that study that says that Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure, please quote it.

Okay. What do you think the study says. Or, perhaps more importantly, what would you do if you had just that information and you were hospitalized with Covid? What questions would you ask if they wanted to give you or a family member Remdesivir?

Assuming you are talking about prescribing Remdesivir for Covid, what does the lack of effectiveness of Remdesivir for Ebola have to do with the effectiveness of Remdesivir for Covid?

How many people in the study died before Remdesivir was pulled and how many people died being treated by Remdesivir from Covid? What is the percentage of both and what did they die from? Because if they died from Remdesivir it doesn't matter what they were being treated for.