Science IS religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

For genetics to even be relative to origin issues we need it to have existed (as we know it today) in the past. That is the issue. Want to prtend you have some knowledge of that?! If so, by all means prove it was the same! If not get off the silly soap box and defend your religion with some dignity.
...

Yet you know that Jesus is a part of the past, that you don't know about. You really don't see that the problem is that we can't know the past, yet you can.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hilarious. Still trying to turn every thread into a witches nest of casting doubt and aspersions on God. As I said, get a thread that deals in that foolishness.

Yet you use doubt and deny it for other humans. See that is called a double standard.

 

[dad]

Yet you believe something about the past, you can't know. Namely that there was a Jesus. So in effect you believe that reality is fair to you.

Of course, I never said I had a problem with reality!

Stop, I know how you do it. You believe that reality is fair to you and reality is how you believe it is. The problem is in practice, that you judge other humans as humans with an authority you don't know if you have.

Example of me judging other humans?

 

[dad]

Yet you know that Jesus is a part of the past, that you don't know about. You really don't see that the problem is that we can't know the past, yet you can.

Of course we know a lot about the past. Just because science doesn't know what nature was like then doesn't mean there are no actual records of the past.

 

[dad]

Yet you use doubt and deny it for other humans. See that is called a double standard.

Example of me 'denying other humans'? I actually think other humans exist. Really.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course we know a lot about the past. Just because science doesn't know what nature was like then doesn't mean there are no actual records of the past.

And you thrust them to be true, thought you can't know, because you can't check, because it is in the past. You believe the past is consistent and deny that assumption when others use it. Double standard again.

 

[dad]

Since there is no evidence of a change.

There is no evidence of a same nature in the past. Science uses that in models. History and the bible record a past that was quite different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Example of me 'denying other humans'? I actually think other humans exist. Really.

Read again:
Yet you use doubt and deny it for other humans. See that is called a double standard.

 

[dad]

And you thrust them to be true, thought you can't know, because you can't check, because it is in the past. You believe the past is consistent and deny that assumption when others use it. Double standard again.

You lack comprehension, possibly due to language issues. (hopefully) I do NOT believe the nature we now have is consistent with either the future or far past. That does not mean there was no nature! Neither does it mean there was no past.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no evidence of a same nature in the past. Science uses that in models. History and the bible record a past that was quite different.

So you trust that, even if you can't know it, because you can't check it. There is the double standard again. You trust the past yet doubt others who do the same.

 

[dad]

So you trust that, even if you can't know it, because you can't check it. There is the double standard again. You trust the past yet doubt others who do the same.

Having a different nature in the past does not mean doubting the past existed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You lack comprehension, possibly due to language issues. (hopefully) I do NOT believe the nature we now have is consistent with either the future or far past.

The past is one moment ago. And you only have memories of it, No evidence. So you do trust the past. You just chose for all humans and deny the choice for other humans. You are the judge of how humans chose to understand reality, based on your standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having a different nature in the past does not mean doubting the past existed.

Yes, because you doubt that we can know the past, yet claim you can. That is the double standard.

 

[dad]

The past is one moment ago.

True. We happen to know what nature was like in that much of the past!

 

[dad]

Yes, because you doubt that we can know the past, yet claim you can. That is the double standard.

For the umpteenth time, we do know about the past in many ways. We do not know what laws/forces/nature existed in the far past. (hint: not talking about a moment ago or last week)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True. We happen t know what nature was like in that much of the past!

No, you choose for all of us, which past to believe in. Don't make me a apart of your "we". You don't speak for me.

 

[dad]

No, you choose for all of us, which past to believe in. Don't make me a apart of your "we". You don't speak for me.

I do not choose what the nature was like in Noah's day. Really. I did not make him live 980 years or whatever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For the umpteenth time, we do know about the past in many ways. We do not know what laws/forces/nature existed in the far past. (hint: not talking about a moment ago or last week)

You are using an arbitrary rule of the past so you win. You don't know that, you just make the rule up, so it fits your beliefs. You doubt other beliefs, but not your own. There is the double standard again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not choose what the nature was like in Noah's day. Really. I did not make him live 980 years or whatever.

No you choose to believe in a past that fits your religion and don't use the doubt you use on other world views on your own. Double standard again

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence of a same nature in the past. Science uses that in models. History and the bible record a past that was quite different.

That is not true. You have been given that many times. This tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Also you do not seem to understand you are shifting the burden of proof. An attempt by those that have lost the debate. If you want to claim there was a change in nature the burden of proof is upon you.

History does not record any such differences and the Bible is of course a book of myths.