Science IS religion

[dad]

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.

Eden was right at creation. Since the flood was say about 1600 or whatever years after that time, and it was probably around the KT layer era, your 40,000 years is trumped.

 

[dad]

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.

His point was trounced. Ha. Hope you didn't think you were learning from it!

 

[siti]

Your arguments are excellent

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not really making arguments...just presenting evidence...my suggestion to anyone who cares and can be bothered in these kind of threads (and I absolutely respect anyone who can't - most often I have neither the time nor the patience) is to "flood the zone" with evidence - your never going to "win" an argument - but we can use the opportunity to learn from one another in an entertaining environment. Thanks @dad !

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

Yes the force that created nature is nature itself and that creative force created humans. Humans then created god in their image to explain everything they did not understand. Fortunately nature created a nervous system that was finally able to understand the world without magical beings. Unfortunately some humans remain stuck in the past with their biblically written description of their god unable to understand what has been learned so create excuses instead of opening their eyes to the amazing world that they live in. Again sorry Dad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A rather silly one in the context of this discussion if you think about it...take this thread for example...religion says that God created everything on earth (and then some) in six days about 6000 years ago...that is a religious idea and it is simply flat out wrong - it has no "magisterium" - it offers no useful teaching to anyone that could possibly inform their morality, values or genuine understanding or appreciation of their place in the world in any positive or beneficial way whatsoever. It is just rubbish. There are no two 'non-overlapping magisterial' ways about this - science is (more or less) right and getting righter and righter as it refines our understanding by observation and religion is just wrong as it continues stubbornly to reject any evidence, no matter how glaringly obvious, that contradicts its woefully inaccurate perception of reality.

I have been giving this some thought and Christianity need not be confined to literal interpretations of scripture that do not require it and would be irrational to consider it literally. When the Bible is viewed as allegory and the focus is on the lessons taught by Christ, it does provide wisdom and virtues that can lead to meaningful moral choices. It offers guidance on how we should consider ethical questions. However, when it comes to explaining the natural world, we have yet to find anything the equal of science.

What I find amusing are those that claim God created science on one hand and then deny the findings of science on the other as merely the words of man. A very amusing paradox, but literalists are incomplete without their paradoxes, fallacies, false idols and scarecrows.

 

[Darkstorn]

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

What you actually did was say that your claims are obvious, and if i don't see it, i'll never see it. So great leading, man. You led me to doubt your ability to lead yourself out of a room without walls.

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!

Yes, science does make the assumption that last thursdayism is probably stupid. I actually give you the benefit of the doubt: Last thursdayism could be true. As could the Matrix. But they sound pretty stupid to me too.

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!

Or, we could use science until YOU come up with a way to prove last thursdayism. That sounds a lot better...

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??

Yes, if you take the bible literally, then embedded age and last thursdayism are just wonderful defence mechanisms to prevent your worldview from crumbling totally. Here's an alternative: Maybe it's not supposed to be taken literally, and maybe your interpretation itself is flawed.

Of course, you'll instantly discount all that.

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.

It's because the alternative, last thursdayism(and Christian apologetics in general) sounds really, really far-fetched. So they go with evidence and assume its age hasn't been tampered by a deceiver god.

Pretty easy assumptions to make in my opinion.

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

I don't feel like it, i'm reading your other thread, the recently locked one, in christianforums. In that one you're decrying evidence using the same reasoning you're doing in this post: That the laws of physics were different in the past due to your belief in last thursdayism.

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

And i'm saying you're a liar.

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

Yes, and unless the rocks contain tampering from a deceiver god, then it's accurate. If rocks do contain said tampering, then yeah i suppose it's not very accurate. First you have to show that this deceiver god exists.

Hgngnghngng. Last thursdayism. I invite everyone to go read his posts on that other forum to get an idea of what this really is all about.

It's of course, all about last thursdayism!

Ps. Dad, it has a more appropriate name than last thursdayism. It's a common form of apologetics. But i'm using the more derisive yet equally accurate term to voice the ridiculousness of the entire concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not really making arguments...just presenting evidence...my suggestion to anyone who cares and can be bothered in these kind of threads (and I absolutely respect anyone who can't - most often I have neither the time nor the patience) is to "flood the zone" with evidence - your never going to "win" an argument - but we can use the opportunity to learn from one another in an entertaining environment. Thanks @dad !

Your arguments are very good. That seems to be the only value to threads like this. It brings in some of the best sorts of people who provide very interesting and intelligent observations, points and arguments.

 

[siti]

Eden was right at creation. Since the flood was say about 1600 or whatever years after that time, and it was probably around the KT layer era, your 40,000 years is trumped.

Oh I see! So let me get this right, you are suggesting that the flood happened at around the KT boundary time - about 66 million years ago - and Edenic metallurgy began 1600 years before that so homo sapiens has been mining and smelting metal ores since the dinosaurs were still around - and Adam was born (oops, I mean created) about 66,001,600 years ago? And you are arguing against unfounded extrapolation of facts? Hmmm!

 

[Bear Wild]

His point was trounced. Ha. Hope you didn't think you were learning from it!

On the contrary I have learned much from siti's posts. I have learned nothing from you that I have not heard over and over - the same magical thinking, the same false accusations, the same grandiose words like trounced when it was you how did not understand. Don't worry I do not expect you to change. Evidence for evolution - 200 years of well challenged yet ever supporting research and observations. Evidence for creationist/intelligent design (well maybe not so intelligent) proponents - I am still waiting.

 

[Revoltingest]

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!

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


Hey, why not!?

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!


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.



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


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.

For the 2nd time this evening,
I need to exit a conversation due to lack of common ground.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just keep calling evidence "spam" without even looking at it. So, tell us exactly what kind of "evidence" are you actually looking forward to? Because it really looks like you're not accepting anything.

It must be the evidence of good science only. Good science is any science that is either neutral to the beliefs of a fundy or that does not cause a fundy discomfort, because it refutes a literal view of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lurkers..behold the spam posting.

Let's watch the personal attacks. I can demonstrate that all you have is belief. You could demonstrate that you know. And I have demonstrated many times that I know. I can support my claims. But until you support some of yours that I requested you support first you are in no position to ask for any such demonstration.

All you need to do is to admit that you cannot support your beliefs and I will explain how we know that life is the product of evolution. I will go over evidence and why it is evidence until it is coming out of your ears. All that is required is that you either support your earlier claims or admit that you can't.

 

[Darkstorn]

It must be the evidence of good science only. Good science is any science that is either neutral to the beliefs of a fundy or that does not cause a fundy discomfort, because it refutes a literal view of the Bible.

Yeah i wasn't really expecting, or really wanting him to define what would be acceptable to him. Because i already know. I've read his stuff on other forums. He's a lot more careful here, he's really trying to masquerade this as a scientific debate. He's of course failing really hard, but on the other forums he doesn't even try.

Just plain goes in and tells they're going to hell for believing in evolution. So, whenever he says "that's not evidence!" i take him to be saying "you're a devil worshipper!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Called it. Coocoo.

(Since we are not worshiping his god, in his mind he has already decided we're worshiping everything else and especially satan.)

Hail Stan!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then post the evidence.

First a quick lesson for you on what evidence is in the first place:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The TLDR is all you need to do is to ask two questions. Is the concept testable. The theory of evolution is testable, it is falsifiable. Second does the observation agree with the predictions of the theory. If the answer is yes to both questions, and it is for all evidence posted so far and will probably continue to be the case, then there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

You on the other hand do not appear to be able to post any scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.

 

[siti]

I have been giving this some thought and Christianity need not be confined to literal interpretations of scripture that do not require it and would be irrational to consider it literally. When the Bible is viewed as allegory and the focus is on the lessons taught by Christ, it does provide wisdom and virtues that can lead to meaningful moral choices. It offers guidance on how we should consider ethical questions. However, when it comes to explaining the natural world, we have yet to find anything the equal of science.

What I find amusing are those that claim God created science on one hand and then deny the findings of science on the other as merely the words of man. A very amusing paradox, but literalists are incomplete without their paradoxes, fallacies, false idols and scarecrows.

Absolutely agree with that - to argue that the Bible must be taken literally, is to limit the ability of its 'author' to speak with authority to anyone but the most scientifically ignorant. And whilst personally I don't believe that the Bible is God's Word (at least not in anything like the usual Christian sense), I am absolutely convinced that Biblical literalism would constitute an affront to God even if it was - do people really think God is so stupid?

My objection to Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is really in the context of the evolution/creation debate (where it is most often invoked - and by both sides I might add) - in this context, if it ain't science its just wrong...and that is not because I think science has all the answers - it doesn't - but I can't see how anything about how the universe and the earth and biological diversity came about can possibly be determined by any process other than inference based on careful observation. Creation myths are not science...therefore they have nothing to say - no authority - no magisterium - on those subjects. As moral stories - as fables - fine - I enjoy a good story and the best stories surely don't limit themselves to facts - but they are stories and any resemblance they might have to facts (which in this case the Bible doesn't) are purely coincidental.

That is an argument (and I'm sure there could be opposing viewpoints on either side) - evolution is simply a fact - there is no use arguing - just present the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the 2nd time this evening,
I think we've no common ground.

I do not think he is grounded, so that is not unexpected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely agree with that - to argue that the Bible must be taken literally, is to limit the ability of its 'author' to speak with authority to anyone but the most scientifically ignorant. And whilst personally I don't believe that the Bible is God's Word (at least not in anything like the usual Christian sense), I am absolutely convinced that Biblical literalism would constitute an affront to God even if it was - do people really think God is so stupid?

My objection to Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is really in the context of the evolution/creation debate (where it is most often invoked - and by both sides I might add) - in this context, if it ain't science its just wrong...and that is not because I think science has all the answers - it doesn't - but I can't see how anything about how the universe and the earth and biological diversity came about can possibly be determined by any process other than inference based on careful observation. Creation myths are not science...therefore they have nothing to say - no authority - no magisterium - on those subjects. As moral stories - as fables - fine - I enjoy a good story and the best stories surely don't limit themselves to facts - but they are stories and any resemblance they might have to facts (which in this case the Bible doesn't) are purely coincidental.

That is an argument (and I'm sure there could be opposing viewpoints on either side) - evolution is simply a fact - there is no use arguing - just present the evidence.

Actually, it is an argument that I subscribe to, though I hold religious views. I just do not consider my belief as a replacement for knowledge acquired through the use of science in regards to the physical world.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah i wasn't really expecting, or really wanting him to define what would be acceptable to him. Because i already know. I've read his stuff on other forums. He's a lot more careful here, he's really trying to masquerade this as a scientific debate. He's of course failing really hard, but on the other forums he doesn't even try.

Just plain goes in and tells they're going to hell for believing in evolution. So, whenever he says "that's not evidence!" i take him to be saying "you're a devil worshipper!"

Yeah, I understand that that this is another case of one of those people that the internet has given a voice to and this includes a cyber road show.

It is amazing that no matter how careful someone with that sort of radical worldview might be, that sort of ill mentis is still an obvious driver of their beliefs.

 

[Dell]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Science has no God, no miracles, no holy sanctified days or rituals, no practice for higher morality as sin or evil or good, etc,.... last 100 years of science has made the world a better place verses 3000 years of religion.