Science IS religion

[dad]

Yes, if i don't find it obvious, i'm influenced by the devil?

Well if there was a woman created by God it would be obvious that she had no mom. What you should be able to see is that the TOE teaches the opposite and we can believe only one or the other.

 

[Darkstorn]

Well if there was a woman created by God it would be obvious that she had no mom. What you should be able to see is that the TOE teaches the opposite and we can believe only one or the other.

Actually the TOE also says that the first mom had no mom. It had nothing to do with god though, since god-magic doesn't really exist. You can't make humans poof into existence from dust.

 

[dad]

Oh i'm definitely not interested. I just expected you to be able to defend your claims with better than "it's obvious, if you don't see it, too bad."

The so called claim was that if God created a woman she had no mom. Why pretend people should defend that? Science can't cover it. What do you want them to do? You see when I ask for a science claim to be defended it is different, there is supposed to be testable, real observable repeatable evidence!

 

[dad]

Actually the TOE also says that the first mom had no mom. It had nothing to do with god though, since god-magic doesn't really exist. You can't make humans poof into existence from dust.

Actually no it does not say the first homo sapiens had no mom.

 

[dad]

If we're talking origins we have to go back way past the flatworms. For most of life's history it was unicellular -- and had no mothers or fathers.

Right we could go back into the deep recesses of your religious imagination if you like. The things is soon as we do many cry us a river that abiogenesis is being talked about with evolution!

 

[Darkstorn]

The so called claim was that if God created a woman she had no mom. Why pretend people should defend that? Science can't cover it. What do you want them to do? You see when I ask for a science claim to be defended it is different, there is supposed to be testable, real observable repeatable evidence!

No, it doesn't work that way. You're just giving yourself a free pass. It's unfalsifiable whether or not a powerful god might or might not exist. But specific truth claims regarding any potential actions, observable or otherwise, are fully in the purview of being testable.

I.E You're either spouting imaginary nonsense about things that cannot have detectable effect, or you ARE talking about things that have a detectable effect. The downside of this thing is that if it's not detectable, it's fully analogous to being impotent, invisible and well, undetectable in any fashion.

 

[Darkstorn]

Actually no it does not say the first homo sapiens had no mom.

I wasn't talking about the first homo sapiens. The first homo sapiens definitely had a mom.

I mean seriously, you are the one claiming that god creating a woman out of dust is what happened. Yet acting like it's funny that it could have happened the natural way...

 

[dad]

I already said i can't disprove last thursdayism[

.
or can I, so stop claiming the past was like today without proof!

It's unfalsifiable

Your claimed same state in the past is unfalsifiable!

Because it assumes all counter-evidence is loaded with "embedded age."

False. I do not say there was any such strawman. That just shows you need to catch up on the fundamentals of the debate here.

I feel like puking a bit....

Not in your posts though anymore please.

 

[Darkstorn]

.
or can I, so stop claiming the past was like today without proof!

I haven't done that. You're confusing your saying the opposite as something i'm doing. That's called projecting.

Your claimed same state in the past is unfalsifiable!

I haven't made any claims. You're making the claim that the past was different. I'm not required to disprove it.

False. I do not say there was any such strawman. That just shows you need to catch up on the fundamentals of the debate here.

No, what you really mean is that i need to catch up on the fundamentals of the internal logic in your mind. Which isn't going to happen. I'll never do anything but ridicule last thursdayism.

All evidence shows that there was the "same state." So the only defence left for you is to decry the evidence. Which is exactly what last thursdayism is. You ARE advocating for embedded age.

Not in your posts though anymore please.

Duly not noted. I'll do whatever i feel like, if i feel like it. Any reply from here on out will be fully based on whether i can gain any entertainment out of it. And that's all.

 

[dad]

To assume a divine creator would be unwarranted.

To omit the supernatural in the face of overwhelming historical records is unwarranted. Also, since many many scientists are 'christian' for them it is unwarranted to omit God!

Very little of science is actually about origins of things, eg, life, the universe.

The universe is always viewd by science in the light of godless origins.

Of what use would it be to assume a creator in fields of.....
Organic chemistry?

Hey, why not!?

Metallurgy?
General relativity?
Quantum mechanics?

Perhaps that strangness science declares and experiences regarding the quantum world would cease to be strange! Maybe they would realize also that GR is only relative to the fishbowl! As for metals, they might realize that men were working metals since Eden!

I'm wondering specifically how it would improve or even change the theories?
How many creators would one assume?

There is only one creator. If science does not even get up to that bar then it is destined and imprisoned and hopelessly limited in origin issues and there is no remedy. It would be fatal.

Which one or several?
What difference would each choice make?
Benevolent or vengeful creators?

If they do not know that much, the rest will always elude them.

See where all that is going?
Applying Occam's Razor, your proposed assumption is superfluous.

Not when we realize the simplest answer is creation and that the Occam was a Christian monk! Where is science going you ask? Nowhere...fast. It cannot possibly ever come to a knowledge of the truth Mankind must flush...or God will flush for us.

 

[dad]

No, it doesn't work that way. You're just giving yourself a free pass. It's unfalsifiable whether or not a powerful god might or might not exist.

Only by godless limited inept religious so called science! That is not any bar or standard.

But specific truth claims regarding any potential actions, observable or otherwise, are fully in the purview of being testable.

Let us test that claim then. How do you test for the spiritual? How do you test what time is like in the far universe...etc?

I.E You're either spouting imaginary nonsense about things that cannot have detectable effect, or you ARE talking about things that have a detectable effect. The downside of this thing is that if it's not detectable, it's fully analogous to being impotent, invisible and well, undetectable in any fashion.

The supernatural and spirits have had a detectable effect on history and hundreds of millions of living test tubes (people). The first life form has affected no one ever.

 

[gnostic]

No one can say what woulda coulda shoulda maybe theoretically possibly happen in the right imaginary conditions in a universe with no God! Nor is that science! Religion.

There are no conditions, except in religions and in fantasy, where dust can naturally turn into a living adult human. PERIOD.

I am talking about “natural” (eg “naturally turn”) as in “nature”, not supernatural, which’s what Genesis 2 claimed to have happen with creation of man from dust.

Dust is byproduct waste, and “waste” as in dead or non-living matters. Dust is what break down of matters.

And when dust comes from a former living creature, when it break down into smaller particles, by decomposing, oxidizing, and drying out.

Dust don’t just magically come to life or come back to life.

There are no conditions, in which nature will turn dust into living adult human, like Adam in Genesis.

 

[dad]

I wasn't talking about the first homo sapiens. The first homo sapiens definitely had a mom.

I mean seriously, you are the one claiming that god creating a woman out of dust is what happened. Yet acting like it's funny that it could have happened the natural way...

The one who created nature is natural. By natural, you mean all by itself and in this present nature. No, that does not happen. Sorry.

 

[Darkstorn]

To omit the supernatural in the face of overwhelming historical records is unwarranted.

Historical records aren't enough. You need evidence, not historical records of people making claims. That's exactly what you're doing, and we don't need a historical record to see you type here.

Also, since many many scientists are 'christian' for them it is unwarranted to omit God!

Ah. So you think they aren't REAL Christians?

The universe is always viewd by science in the light of godless origins.

No. It makes no god claims whatsoever. Many scientists who understand evolution ARE real Christians. Evolution stands on its own without any origin claims whatsoever.

Hey, why not!?

Yes, what a great argument for assuming goddidit. Why not? Yeah, why not evolution?

Perhaps that strangness science declares and experiences regarding the quantum world would cease to be strange! Maybe they would realize also that GR is only relative to the fishbowl! As for metals, they might realize that men were working metals since Eden!

Fishbowl = current state btw. Par for the course for last thursdayism.

There is only one creator. If science does not even get up to that bar then it is destined and imprisoned and hopelessly limited in origin issues and there is no remedy. It would be fatal.

What about them Hindu gods?

 

[Bear Wild]

Danger! Danger! Do not engage! Timecube levels of willfully obtuse boneheadedness lie that way! Danger!

You could not have predicted better. Thanks for the warning you predicted the useless, rambling and meaningless posting long before they had ever started. "Dad" (not a reference to mine) does not care about evidence or what is true, Dad just likes the argument and unfortunately will never learn from all those who have taken the time to give accurate and up to date support that Dad has no intention of accepting any of it. His mind is clearly lost in space.

 

[siti]

As for metals, they might realize that men were working metals since Eden!

Oh much earlier than that - there is archaeological evidence of lead and copper smelting being carried out in the 6th millennium BCE - almost 2000 years before men were even created! And non-extractive use of native metals (gold) seems to date back to about 40,000 BCE at least. These guys were really ahead of their time - they even made copper axe-heads 1000 years before the first man could possibly have needed one.

 

[Darkstorn]

The one who created nature is natural. By natural, you mean all by itself and in this present nature. No, that does not happen. Sorry.

You seem to be under the impression that i'm looking for your assurances.

You should feel sorry for how unconvincing you are.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oh much earlier than that - there is archaeological evidence of lead and copper smelting being carried out in the 6th millennium BCE - almost 2000 years before men were even created! To say they were ahead of their time is an understatement.

Your arguments are excellent his acceptance of anything than what he wants to believe is zero. The one good thing I can think of in these threads is how much I have learned from everyone else and the challenge to continue learning from everyone contributions, well almost everyone. Sorry Dad.

 

[dad]

I haven't done that. You're confusing your saying the opposite as something i'm doing. That's called projecting.

Science does that. If you are against science while cheer leading for it at the same time, then you need to clue us in where your beliefs depart from science!

I haven't made any claims. You're making the claim that the past was different. I'm not required to disprove it.

Science makes claims. It assumes the present is the key t the past. It uses current physics to model the past...etc. So you need to prove it or dump science!

The bible and history indicate major differences in the nature of the past in things like 1000 year life spans and spirit gods among mankind etc. Why would I disbelieve them just because you claim some supposed science that you can't support at all??

No, what you really mean is that i need to catch up on the fundamentals of the internal logic in your mind. Which isn't going to happen. I'll never do anything but ridicule last thursdayism.

No, I mean that you should be aware of the realities of why science makes claims about the past or future if you are going to cheer lead for it.

All evidence shows that there was the "same state." So the only defence left for you is to decry the evidence.

The defense for you is to produce and post some rather than saying the word evidence as if it helped your religion!

Which is exactly what last thursdayism is. You ARE advocating for embedded age.

Wrong. I am saying the ages you think you see in your head are the result of religious doctrines foisted onto evidences.

Example...the age of earth is derived from radioactive decay dates in large part.

 

[dad]

You seem to be under the impression that i'm looking for your assurances.

You should feel sorry for how unconvincing you are.

If a horse was led to water but refused to drink, I admit we may feel some pity for it.