Science IS religion

[dad]

Because we can look into the distant past and see that the laws of physics were the same.

The phrase "distant past" is a big hint.

You look at stars and assume time exists all the way and assign distances accordingly (and ages). Then the light from that comes here to the fishbowl where it exists in our laws and time etc. Ha.

 

[dad]

What is it with you and worms - is it the penis fencing thing you mentioned? I mean, I gotta admit that got to me too - I had this mental picture of two 270 million year old flatworms gaily waving the willies at each other in a late Paleozoic celebration of sexual exuberance and then another dull-witted flatworm pops up and declares - hey, you guys knock it off - the great bearded flatworm in the sky says that's unnatural!

I thought people of a certain bend might think of that. So the thing I dislike about the claim man is related to worms is that it denigrates mankind and God. Rather than having the earth as the all important future home of the Almighty forever and people as His pride and joy and crowning creation, science has us equal to rats and plants and worms, and living as a meaningless speck in a meaningless universe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So we may see an object of unknown size and distance

But we do know distance and size. And we've studied these things well enough that even before our age of high tech research we were able to mathematically predict the existence of Uranus.Einstein made a prediction for Relativity, decades later conditions were right for observation and Einstein's prediction was correct. We look out, we can even see that the specs and flakes of the universe are moving outwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still no content then. OK

There was content. An article for you to read since you do not understand the concept of evidence. You are always addressing the lurkers, when you run away like that they do notice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being redeemed is almost my only quality.

A person that is "redeemed" is not supposed to be dishonest. Just a friendly reminder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You look at stars and assume time exists all the way and assign distances accordingly (and ages). Then the light from that comes here to the fishbowl where it exists in our laws and time etc. Ha.

No, dad. You would have to assume, since you won't let yourself learn any of the sciences. Those that study do not have to assume. Assuming is one of your many sins.

 

[siti]

Rather than having the earth as the all important future home of the Almighty forever and people as His pride and joy and crowning creation, science has us equal to rats and plants and worms, and living as a meaningless speck in a meaningless universe.

Yep! That's about it. I'm OK with being a meaningless speck on a meaningless speck in a meaningless universe...it is what it is! And we should be eternally grateful to you for making absolutely no meaningful impression on the meaninglessness of it all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.... but I have found, that with a sufficiently attractive lure?

You can reason with a dog. Or a horse. Or even a cat.

Does that mean? That a horse/dog/cat is more teachable-- more reasonable-- than a creationist?

Yes.... even a cat.

I think it does. I know it does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True paranoia-- in the clinical sense-- can be quite disheartening to witness. My empathy goes out to these people, who cannot manage to function without intense feelings of persecution and worse.

Sadly? There are other cases, who are not suffering a brain malfunction (as above) but instead, have been grossly manipulated by circumstances, and are operating under absolutely false pretenses. Fortunately? If they have the will, they can easily get better by the simple act of Studying Things. Knowledge is the cure for what ails them, and in this day of Al Gore's Intertubes? Knowledge is practically free-- but there is a danger.

The interwebs also contain the largest collection of human-created bull exhaust ever compiled, since the beginning of time.

One thing I have observed among the younger sort, who grew up with this Monster? They are, usually, a lot better at filtering out what is plainly dumb, and what is useful. Some of us old Fogies, who grew up with Dead Tree Encyclopedias (a kind of primitive internet), which required physical travel to something called a Library, to access Knowledge. Back then? The creation of an Encyclopedia was so expensive, that -- usually-- the knowledge contained therein was pretty high quality. It therefore took more work for us post-WW2 kids to develop a really good BS detector.

Alas... some of our generation never did learn that trick...

It was an interesting, but very strange thing to watch that poor woman. She was completely freaked out and showing others this smoke detector she had disassembled to find a camera. I looked at it and told her that the thing she thought was a camera was a capacitor and told her that a camera wouldn't work where it was located. The casing had to be removed to expose it and with the casing in place, the only thing that a camera would pick up would be the dark interior of the smoke detector. She was even more freaked out by the LED bulb. They have the old standard light bulb shape, but it has plastic about midway down to the threaded base. As a result it looks odd compared to the incandescent bulbs we are all used to. It is fortunate that it was not one of those dusk to dawn LED's with the photo sensor built in, that would have caused her a lot of distress. She was going through a separation and I suppose she was keyed up about that, but she was talking to one of the associates about contacting the manufacturers and sending the photos to make sure these were not some sort of fake units designed to hide cameras.

I think people were being very patient and kind with her and that seemed to help more than the reassurances about the detector and the bulb being safe.

Some of those old sources of information also did not have to compete with a lot of nonsense, since it did cost so much to produce. I loved those encyclopedias and textbooks as a kid. My folks were book people and we always had plenty of good resources around the house to look through and learn from.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep! That's about it. I'm OK with being a meaningless speck on a meaningless speck in a meaningless universe...it is what it is! And we should be eternally grateful to you for making absolutely no meaningful impression on the meaninglessness of it all.

I am grateful to him. He is a fine example of something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just checking in to see if any progress has been made.
<looks about>
Oh, dear.

Construction on the leap over knowledge, reason and understanding to the any random default position in belief is being held up by people with knowledge, reason and understanding. There was an accident on the turnpike outside of Huh? and traffic is being rerouted to North Rational Thought. There are several cars stalled in the left lane of the highway at the exit for Pure Subjective Opinion and this has slowed things down a little, but DOT (Department of Thinking) engineers have things well in hand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Vee said,

"Scientists believes....."

But

Let me stop you right there.. "believe" is not an appropriate word to use in this context..... evidence suggests

More semantics. Unbelievable how ridiculous to argue the point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Vee said,

"Scientists believes....."

But



More semantics. Unbelievable how ridiculous to argue the point.

It is not semantics. It is fact. Acceptance of a scientific theory as an explanation for evidence is not the same thing as believing something on faith with no evidence at all. Believing in a scientific theory is possible, but it does not make sense, since there is evidence. No scientists would waste their time simply believing something without examining the evidence and reasoning behind the explanation or a conclusion.

Besides the millions of interpretations of scripture that people constantly argue about, there is no evidence for faith-based belief. If there was, it would not be called faith.

 

[dad]

There was content. An article for you to read since you do not understand the concept of evidence. You are always addressing the lurkers, when you run away like that they do notice.

Tell us in your words what you think evidence is then. (besides blind belief)

 

[dad]

No, dad. You would have to assume, since you won't let yourself learn any of the sciences. Those that study do not have to assume. Assuming is one of your many sins.

You actually seem to be under the impression science can tell what time is like in deep space. So show the experiment? Ha. lurkers: science does not know and has no such test.

 

[dad]

Yep! That's about it. I'm OK with being a meaningless speck on a meaningless speck in a meaningless universe..

.

How sad.

it is what it is! And we should be eternally grateful to you for making absolutely no meaningful impression on the meaninglessness of it all.

I hadn't actually started a thread to resolve the world of all it's dead end deceptions and beliefs. About all I can try to do is expose some, and hope that people wake up and seek truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell us in your words what you think evidence is then. (besides blind belief)

First tell me why you did not follow the link provided. Others can do a better job than I can, but if you answer I will explain to you what scientific evidence is and why it has the definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You actually seem to be under the impression science can tell what time is like in deep space. So show the experiment? Ha. lurkers: science does not know and has no such test.

You seem to be under the strange misconception that they can't. Since to date you have demonstrated a fear of learning you are in no position to judge what others know. Your Ostrich Defense makes you totally incompetent when it comes to judging what scientists know.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is not semantics. It is fact. Acceptance of a scientific theory as an explanation for evidence is not the same thing as believing something on faith with no evidence at all. Believing in a scientific theory is possible, but it does not make sense, since there is evidence. No scientists would waste their time simply believing something without examining the evidence and reasoning behind the explanation or a conclusion.

Besides the millions of interpretations of scripture that people constantly argue about, there is no evidence for faith-based belief. If there was, it would not be called faith.

Then why are there conflicting theories? Some scientists believe one thing, and others another. Grief, just deal with it, man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why are there conflicting theories? Some scientists believe one thing, and others another. Grief, just deal with it, man.

If you mean conflicting theories to the theory of evolution, there aren't any. At least not that anyone has brought up here. There is debate about the details. That is how science advances.