Science leads to killing people.

[Nextstopearth]

I was just watching the trinity broadcasting network where Ben Stein was a guest promoting Expelled. At one point Ben actually said "Science leads to killing people". I had to rewind it to make sure that is what he said. They also showed some clips of expelled, which was almost as funny and his comment about science.

[NotStandingBy]

Originally Posted by Nextstopearth

I was just watching the trinity broadcasting network where Ben Stein was a guest promoting Expelled. At one point Ben actually said "Science leads to killing people". I had to rewind it to make sure that is what he said. They also showed some clips of expelled, which was almost as funny and his comment about science.

Ben Stein lost credability when he started peddling ID.

[leafs43]

Completely untrue.


Science leads to killing people more efficeintly.

[DaCougarMech]

he needs some Clear Eyes

[TheAsianMan]

lulz

[nonAtlas]

Originally Posted by Nextstopearth

I was just watching the trinity broadcasting network where Ben Stein was a guest promoting Expelled. At one point Ben actually said "Science leads to killing people". I had to rewind it to make sure that is what he said. They also showed some clips of expelled, which was almost as funny and his comment about science.

Sorry but you are going to have to provide some context. Lacking such, your comment is seen merely as an attempted attack on someone whose argument you can't intellectually challenge. Now as to the words you claim he said, at face value, that is true when you qualify "science" as "pseudoscience". The notion that black people, jews and so many other ethnicities were flawed and thus destructive or not worth the resources they consume, for example, is what drove Margaret Sanger (of "planned parenthood" infamy) and Adolf Hitler both to worship the concept of eugenics. She hated blacks and we know that he hated and destroyed many more people than the jewish people we know he killed. Both of them were driven by faith in the religion of the non-scientist Chuck Darwin.

So in that case what some purport is "science" really does and did kill millions and wreck our culture.

[timbo81]

who do you think made the atom bomb.... wait for it...... scientists!

[frankenstein]

I used to think Stein must be brilliant when he had that game show on Comedy Central back in the day. Even listening to him talk about finance, I must say he's not nearly as intelligent as I once thought. I had already lost some respect on his opinion, but now with these ridiculous comments about ID, I can no longer take the man seriously at all.

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by timbo81

who do you think made the atom bomb.... wait for it...... scientists!

i thought it was americans :3

[TheAsianMan]

Originally Posted by nonAtlas

Sorry but you are going to have to provide some context. Lacking such, your comment is seen merely as an attempted attack on someone whose argument you can't intellectually challenge. Now as to the words you claim he said, at face value, that is true when you qualify "science" as "pseudoscience". The notion that black people, jews and so many other ethnicities were flawed and thus destructive or not worth the resources they consume, for example, is what drove Margaret Sanger (of "planned parenthood" infamy) and Adolf Hitler both to worship the concept of eugenics. She hated blacks and we know that he hated and destroyed many more people than the jewish people we know he killed. Both of them were driven by faith in the religion of the non-scientist Chuck Darwin.

So in that case what some purport is "science" really does and did kill millions and wreck our culture.

wut?

human life expectancy have increase tremendousely, so has the population and birth rate, due to modern science

[frankenstein]

Originally Posted by nonAtlas

Sorry but you are going to have to provide some context. Lacking such, your comment is seen merely as an attempted attack on someone whose argument you can't intellectually challenge. Now as to the words you claim he said, at face value, that is true when you qualify "science" as "pseudoscience". The notion that black people, jews and so many other ethnicities were flawed and thus destructive or not worth the resources they consume, for example, is what drove Margaret Sanger (of "planned parenthood" infamy) and Adolf Hitler both to worship the concept of eugenics. She hated blacks and we know that he hated and destroyed many more people than the jewish people we know he killed. Both of them were driven by faith in the religion of the non-scientist Chuck Darwin.

So in that case what some purport is "science" really does and did kill millions and wreck our culture.

Now I remember why I normally have you on ignore. Hmm. Science has managed to about triple the average lifespan worldwide within the last few hundred years. Believers in eugenics are just madmen. The world had them before the Renaissance and it will have madmen until mankind is gone.

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by timbo81

who do you think made the atom bomb.... wait for it...... scientists!

who made antibiotics?

but I think you're joking

[nonAtlas]

Originally Posted by frankenstein

Now I remember why I normally have you on ignore. Hmm. Science has managed to about triple the average lifespan worldwide within the last few hundred years. Believers in eugenics are just madmen. The world had them before the Renaissance and it will have madmen until mankind is gone.

You miss the point, and you don't address it at all above. Saying "science did it" is too vague and completely off target, for that is casting rather a broad net that doesn't account for the evil of pseudoscience such as I pointed out earlier. By the same logic as you use one could very easily--and correctly--say such words as the thread-launcher claimed Mr Stein said in or about his movie that the skeptics can't attack reasonably, logically or scientifically. I doubt that you would care for that.

Note also that the "science" that the eugenicists used was the false "science" of Chuck Darwin, who was, after all, an accomplished liar and known in his childhood solely for his ability to spin a yarn that no one around him took seriously.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

who made antibiotics?

Dat dere god made dat dere antibiotics

[nonAtlas]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

who made antibiotics?

Medicine and medical science are gifts from God.

[TheAsianMan]

Originally Posted by nonAtlas

You miss the point, and you don't address it at all above. Saying "science did it" is too vague and completely off target, for that is casting rather a broad net that doesn't account for the evil of pseudoscience such as I pointed out earlier. By the same logic as you use one could very easily--and correctly--say such words as the thread-launcher claimed Mr Stein said in or about his movie that the skeptics can't attack reasonably, logically or scientifically. I doubt that you would care for that.

Note also that the "science" that the eugenicists used was the false "science" of Chuck Darwin, who was, after all, an accomplished liar and known in his childhood solely for his ability to spin a yarn that no one around him took seriously.

Originally Posted by nonAtlas

Medicine and medical science are gifts from God.

ok i come to a conclusion that you are trolling. The fact that modern medicine relies on the existence of evolution mean you have no understanding of it.

[user1245464]

I'm quite certain that science has saved more lives than it has destroyed. Organized religion on the other hand...

But in all honesty, this is a stupid discussion, regardless of which way you argue. It's nothing more than trying to point fingers and doesn't solve anything.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by diffusion

I'm quite certain that science has saved more lives than it has destroyed. Organized religion on the other hand...

But in all honesty, this is a stupid discussion, regardless of which way you argue. It's nothing more than trying to point fingers and doesn't solve anything.

Organized religion saves your unmeasurable, undetectable soul.

I think we know which one wins here.

[user1245464]

Originally Posted by leafs43

Organized religion saves your unmeasurable, undetectable soul.

I think we know which one wins here.

That's your personal belief, and you know it. I'm talking about saving our physical existence on this planet. Something we can actually measure.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by diffusion

That's your personal belief, and you know it. I'm talking about saving our physical existence on this planet. Something we can actually measure.

Just playing devil's advocate is all.

That and being very sarcastic.

[user1245464]

Originally Posted by leafs43

Just playing devil's advocate is all.

That and being very sarcastic.

Oh, I see. Well in that case, here, have a smiley:

[Enso]

Originally Posted by nonAtlas

Medicine and medical science are gifts from God.

Yup, so thank the scientist who discovered them.

[drew101]

Science without morality leads only to death and destruction.

The world today is in far more peril and potential peril than ever due to the unrighteous use of science.

One only has to look at the world.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by drew101

Science without morality leads only to death and destruction.

The world today is in far more peril and potential peril than ever due to the unrighteous use of science.

One only has to look at the world.

So when an atheist finds the cure for cancer/aids/whatever it is because it is unrighteous use and immoral taste?

[drew101]

Originally Posted by Anh

ok i come to a conclusion that you are trolling. The fact that modern medicine relies on the existence of evolution mean you have no understanding of it.

But evolution is not a fact.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by drew101

But evolution is not a fact, it is an immense collection of facts and is the phenomena that explains how the facts are related

fix't

[user1245464]

Originally Posted by drew101

But evolution is not a fact.

Yes it is. You just choose to ignore it.

[Robby99999]

Science itself never leads to killing people. However, MISUSE of certain technology can and does lead to evil and death.
Technology is the application of science for the purpose of achieving objectives.

Organized religion, on the other hand, has been responsible for many killings and deaths due to various wars and other disasters centered around them.
-9/11 is one of those events that involved religion, which was Islam in this case. This atrocity involving religion is what has led to our current war and the resulting high gas prices.
-Back during the Roman Empire, there was a lot of murdering. If you didn't submit to their OWN TYPE of Christianity, then you got murdered or persecuted.

[MonsterG8r]

Originally Posted by Anh

The fact that modern medicine relies on the existence of evolution mean you have no understanding of it.

Really? So.......please list 4-5 examples of how modern medicine "RELIES"
on evolution.

[user1245464]

Originally Posted by MonsterG8r

Really? So.......please list 4-5 examples of how modern medicine "RELIES"
on evolution.

A 2 second google search yielded this:

Originally Posted by http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112&ct=1

The most obvious examples of evolutionary biology's importance to medical understanding are related to infectious disease. As Jon Laman pointed out at the meeting, the immune system provides the perfect platform to explain the medical relevance of the exquisite evolutionary relationships between pathogens and their hosts. Understanding how virulence evolves, for example, can help predict the potential, sometimes counterintuitive (and controversial) negative consequences of imperfect vaccination. But evolution can also tell us that the origin of HIV was precipitated by a jump across the primate species barrier and enables us to predict the imminent arrival of avian flu and the mutations most likely to be responsible for that evolutionary leap from birds to humans. Where epidemiological and population genetic processes occur on the same time scale, the emerging field of “phylodyamics” can also inform us about the timing and progression of pathogen adaptation more generally. The relevance of evolution to medicine is, however, much broader. Participants at the York meeting discussed not only how vulnerability to cancer is an inevitable but unfortunate consequence of imperfect human engineering and natural selection (Mel Greaves, Institute of Cancer Research, UK), but how life history theory can potentially explain patterns of pregnancy loss (Virginia Vitzthum, Indiana University), how a comparative approach applied to different human cultures and different primates can improve rates of breastfeeding (Helen Ball, University of Durham), whether clinical depression has an adaptive origin (Lewis Wolpert, University College London), and if suicide attempts are really just evolutionary bargaining chips in intense social disputes (Ed Hagen, Humboldt University).
As with any emerging field, ideas change and the science is challenged. The thrifty gene concept —that some populations (e.g., from Polynesia) are particularly susceptible to type 2 diabetes and heart disease because of past selection pressure specifically during times of famine—no longer enjoys the support it once had. Tessa Pollard (University of Durham, UK) explained that the so-called Syndrome X is now considered to be the result of more general exposure to a rapid change in lifestyle as Western society encroached on these populations during the mid-20th century. The relationship between changing environment, diet, and susceptibility to disease, however, is also far from clear. Many diet-related conditions that typify industrialized populations—e.g., obesity, hypertension, and tooth decay—have been explained as resulting from an evolutionary mismatch between our over-refined, fat-filled contemporary diet and the environment to which humans were once ideally adapted. Sarah Elton (Hull York Medical School, UK) cautioned that while this analogy (the “environment of evolutionary adaptedness”) has been useful as a research tool and has led to public health campaigns for better diets (more seeds, nuts, fish oil, etc.), recreating such a typical “Stone Age diet” as a benchmark can be misleading. Human ecology in the past was at least as variable as human (and other primate) ecology is today.