Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[SkepticThinker]

Facts are 100 % true, not wishful thinking and guesses.

It's pretty difficult to demonstrate that anything is 100% true, that's why we use probabilities and confidence intervals, as I explained.

Can you do it? Go ahead, demonstrate that your religious beliefs are 100% true. Oh, and when you do it, your demonstration needs to be as rigorous as the scientific method is.

The first link didn't have any meaningful fact, I assume the others were as pointless.

I didn't provide any links in that post.

If you disagree, you could maybe tell what is there 100 % factual and meaningful for this debate (one example is enough).

Huh?

 

[Sheldon]

Facts are 100 % true, not wishful thinking and guesses.

Nope, that's a false dichotomy fallacy you've created using a straw man. A fact is defined as something that is known or proved to be true. A scientific fact is something that is supported by a sufficient weight of objective evidence and is therefore known to be true. The likelihood species evolution will substantially reversed let alone entirely abandoned is so low as to be realistically zero. However like all scientific ideas, it must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence, as this a basic requirement of the method.

It's also worth pointing out yet again, since you have used a false dichotomy fallacy here, that it is also a false dichotomy fallacy to assume it is a choice between the fact of species evolution or unevidenced creation myths. As even in the astronomically unlikely scenario that species evolution were entirely reversed tomorrow, creationism would remain an unevidenced myth, without any explanatory value, and of course since it makes unfalsifiable claims for supernatural causation it is by definition unscientific.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Facts are 100 % true, not wishful thinking and guesses. The first link didn't have any meaningful fact, I assume the others were as pointless. If you disagree, you could maybe tell what is there 100 % factual and meaningful for this debate (one example is enough).

You know what would be cool? If you responded to the entirety of my posts rather than randomly parsing out half sentences and responding to those. You'll understand the bigger picture and the point better if you take in the entire post.

 

[ratiocinator]

The extragalactic distance scale looks like circular reasoning. All of the measurements are based on assumptions. It is possible that all the assumptions are wrong.

Pretty much anything is possible, the point here is that we have multiple lines of evidence, not only from astronomy, but also from completely different disciplines, that the universe and the Earth are very old.

The idea that they are all wrong and wrong in such a way as to agree with each other so well, would be incredibly improbable. If it were a court of law, it would be proved way, way beyond any suggestion of reasonable doubt.

Going back to my specific post, what do you think galaxies are, if not collections of hundreds of billions of stars? And if they are, then how come they are so faint and small as seen from Earth?

 

[Sheldon]

Nikola Tesla said about it:

“[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”

I agree with him.

Quote mining now, and denying the speed of light, and that Einstein's theory demonstrates it is a constant, and claiming the entire universe is magnitudes smaller than our own galaxy, which is approximately 100000 light years across. Misrepresenting science as dealing in absolutes, while dealing in religious absolutes of course, and on and on etc etc...

Creationists never disappoint, I'll give them that.

 

[Sheldon]

You know what would be cool? If you responded to the entirety of my posts rather than randomly parsing out half sentences and responding to those. You'll understand the bigger picture and the point better if you take in the entire post.

Oh I don't think his cherry picking is any sort of accident, do you? I don't think it's for clarity or for the sake of brevity either.

 

[Sheldon]

Nikola Tesla said about it:

“[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”

I agree with him.

How about Francis Collins, do you believe him? He was head of the human genome project, and he's also a born again Christian. He's been vocally critical of creationism. Since you like quote mining here's one from Collins.

"intelligent design is headed for collapse in the not too distant future" and that "science class ought to be about science, and opening the door to religious perspectives in that setting is a big mistake."

 

[ratiocinator]

“[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”

I agree with him.

Tesla was dead by the time many of the tests of relativity had been done. So far the theory has passed every test that we've been able to do either by experiment or observation. One of the recent ones was the direct detection of gravitational waves (2015, published 2016) predicted by the theory.

What's more the GPS system requires corrections due to relativistic time dilation, both due to relative velocity (special relativity) and gravitation (general relativity).

Again, that the theory is a very good model of gravitation and the universe on a large scale is well beyond reasonable doubt.

Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia
Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia
Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

 

[1213]

...
Again, that the theory is a very good model of gravitation and the universe on a large scale is well beyond reasonable doubt.
...

It works in some way, because it is relative. The genius part of it is, one doesn't have to know all constants correctly, when things are relative.

 

[1213]

How about Francis Collins, do you believe him? He was head of the human genome project, and he's also a born again Christian. He's been vocally critical of creationism. Since you like quote mining here's one from Collins.

"intelligent design is headed for collapse in the not too distant future" and that "science class ought to be about science, and opening the door to religious perspectives in that setting is a big mistake."

What makes him "born again Christian"? I think he is wrong.

 

[1213]

...
Going back to my specific post, what do you think galaxies are, if not collections of hundreds of billions of stars? And if they are, then how come they are so faint and small as seen from Earth?

I don't know other than that they are some kind of sources of light. It is not possible to say the size, distance or what they are more specifically.

 

[1213]

...
Can you do it? Go ahead, demonstrate that your religious beliefs are 100% true...

I call it a belief, because it is not possible for me to prove anything.

...
I didn't provide any links in that post.

Huh?

In that case, sorry, I must have mixed someone else's post to yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I call it a belief, because it is not possible for me to prove anything.

So you have lower standards of evidence than the science community but you want to impugn the scientific method?
Huh?

In that case, sorry, I must have mixed someone else's post to yours.

No worries.

 

[ratiocinator]

The genius part of it is, one doesn't have to know all constants correctly, when things are relative.

We can safely add relativity to the list of things you know nothing about.

I don't know other than that they are some kind of sources of light. It is not possible to say the size, distance or what they are more specifically.

As I said, you're having to deny astronomy and physics. We can tell a great deal about what they are. See here: Galaxy - Observation history.

 

[Sheldon]

What makes him "born again Christian"?

Same as as the rest I imagine.

I think he is wrong.

Well his work has been scientifically validated, and he was at the top of his field. So I'm going to accept the scientific evidence over your bare denials of scientific facts.

 

[Sheldon]

We can safely add relativity to the list of things you know nothing about.

As I said, you're having to deny astronomy and physics. We can tell a great deal about what they are. See here: Galaxy - Observation history.

It's pretty ironic, but also a little sad that people are taught that creationism trumps scientific facts.

 

[Brian2]

Science makes prophecies? When did this start happening?

Science tries to predict things, but it is hardly prophecy in a religious sense.

 

[Brian2]

Atheists can read what's in the prophecy, the difference is that we don't try to force it to fit what did happen, when what the prophecy said clearly didn't.

This article is worth the read if you are interested. What is said in the prophecy did happen but the truth is cluttered by those who publish wrong history and interpretations, and those people it seems have been liberal Christians more than secular historians, who have no bones to pick with what the Bible says.

Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research

 

[Brian2]

And if you read the Bible and understood it, or studied history you would know that Tyre was the island. Early Christian historians tried to come up with the "mainland Tyre" nonsense but when one studies the history the Island was the source of power then and had been for quite some time. In the Bible they are very clear to separate the island from "its settlements".

Tyre was the island and the mainland city, which was called Old Tyre and also Ushu.
This article is by someone who seems to know what he is talking about in terms of history and Biblical interpretation. It is worth reading. Both the history and the Biblical interpretation have been confused somewhat in the past, and by Liberal Christians who have used it as an example of Biblical errancy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but they are wrong.
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science tries to predict things, but it is hardly prophecy in a religious sense.

A prediction is not a prophecy in any sense. It is not appropriate to say that science does prophecies.