Science IS religion

[dad]

False. Science demonstrates and shows it is EFFECTIVE.

The ABSOLUTE IRONY of YOU USING SCIENCE (to be a massive BULLY), while DENYING SCIENCE

Nothing is effective in the world that stems from origin sciences stories. You need to learn that not all that is tacked onto what is called science is actually real or true or valid.....religion.

 

[dad]

Prove it. Prove it WITHOUT INVOKING MAGIC.

You can't. Science has a 1000+ year track record of SUCCESS. Your bible? Has an even longer track record of FAILURE.

Why avoid defending your belief in a same nature in the past? That has NOTHING to do with any advancement or actual science whatsoever. You are an example of people who cannot defend their beliefs and yet want those beliefs to be accepted as science.

 

[tas8831]

Hmmm.... I really love my religion. Science shows stuff that makes my religion look silly... What can I do???

I've got it!

I will just call science a religion, and that way, I can pretend that the scientific methods are no better at finding things out than my favoritest collection of tales from ancient times!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Were you able to provide an example of something you considered to be real science? It was about 52 pages ago that someone asked.

 

[dad]

Hmmm.... I really love my religion. Science shows stuff that makes my religion look silly... What can I do???

Chose which, if any of the diametrically opposing belief systems you choose to believe.

I will just call science a religion, and that way, I can pretend that the scientific methods are no better at finding things out than my favoritest collection of tales from ancient times!

You can pretend there ARE any scientific methods that deal with or can cover the nature in the far past on earth, so as to try and make your origin science beliefs seem believable. So you do. Religious fanaticism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The dates do not support anything since they are derived from belief.

So you lied when you claimed the Cambrian explosion supported your beliefs, then?

Having a lot of creatures die and get fossilized does fit Genesis. The fossil record that relates to origin issues was laid down long ago. The nature of that day according to history and Scripture was different than today. It is reasonable to assume, looking at bible timing of when Adam lived, as well as how Adam was told he would return to dust, that Scripture indicates man would have decayed too fast at that time to be able to leave remains such as fossils! That is a probable reason that man is not in the fossil record then. Man was alive, but not represented in the fossils! We can deduce that the animals also for the most part are in the same category. So the earliest fossils we see are simply the creatures that died first, and COULD fossilize. That fits the bible and evidence from science.

In other words, if you make a bunch of stuff, you can make it fit the facts.

See, this is a classic example of re-imagining fantasy in order to make it fit with reality. You simply assert, without any Biblical reference whatsoever, that humans wouldn't have left fossils in the past, and therefore the fact that we don't see any human fossils until only around a hundred thousand years ago fits with the Bible.

You know what else it fits with? Literally anything if we use your logic.

In every area we look, the separation of continents, dating, DNA, etc etc the same basic belief is used in models by so called science for the past. That belief is that this present is the key to the past. They assume that by looking at today's nature and laws that this also 'must' represent what existed from creation here. THIS is a belief that must be proven before any models based on it gain validity! Until you can solidly support that mother of assumptions, the models based on it cannot be accepted as true.

Provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the laws of physics and biology have dramatically changed at any point in time.

Until then, this argument is ridiculous.

You are left with...religion.

Uh huh. So, basically, religion is "using observations to make determinations about past events".

 

[dad]

Were you able to provide an example of something you considered to be real science? It was about 52 pages ago that someone asked.

If it works and is real, why would I consider it unreal? Origin fables do NOT work and have no truth or reality.

Nuclear weapons work. Biological weapons, fast cars and etc etc. The science that is real is not good, but good and evil. The fables are pure evil.

 

[tas8831]

Chose which, if any of the diametrically opposing belief systems you choose to believe.



You can pretend there ARE any scientific methods that deal with or can cover the nature in the far past on earth, so as to try and make your origin science beliefs seem believable. So you do. Religious fanaticism.

And there you go again...

Tell us all , superstar - what doe your ancient middle eastern scroll tell us about 'states past'?

What is the corroboration for this altered reality?

You've got nothing, You've HAD nothing for the many years that you've been making these sad, desperate claims.

This is why even your own kind doesn't take you seriously. I took you off ignore a while back for the entertainment value, but even that is getting old...

 

[Brickjectivity]

If it works and is real, why would I consider it unreal?

You might if, say, you thought that Galileo was undermining your way of life by claiming Earth wasn't at the center of the universe. Christianity has a long history of refusing to accept not just the results of science but its inner processes. Your claims against evolution could be in the same wagon.

Nuclear weapons work. Biological weapons, fast cars

Those are products not sciences. Science is a discipline.

 

[tas8831]

If it works and is real, why would I consider it unreal? Origin fables do NOT work and have no truth or reality.

Nuclear weapons work. Biological weapons, fast cars and etc etc. The science that is real is not good, but good and evil. The fables are pure evil.

What is anything that your scrolls have told us about the nature of the world?

Grasshoppers have 4 legs? Bats are birds? Sacrificing a pigeon over running water cures leprosy?

Great stuff!

Not science. Not real. Not verified or valid or corroborated, but great stuff for the simple.

 

[dad]

So you lied when you claimed the Cambrian explosion supported your beliefs, then?

You can't read eh?

In other words, if you make a bunch of stuff, you can make it fit the facts.

That would be your religion. None of which you can defend. So we see your attempts at deceit, lying, slander and diversion instead.

See, this is a classic example of re-imagining fantasy in order to make it fit with reality. You simply assert, without any Biblical reference whatsoever, that humans wouldn't have left fossils in the past, and therefore the fact that we don't see any human fossils until only around a hundred thousand years ago fits with the Bible.

I cited a few biblical truths that support that idea actually. Why pretend you have a bible case? Not only that, but the 1000 year lifespans almost, and fast tree growth clearly support a nature that was not like today!

Provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the laws of physics and biology have dramatically changed at any point in time.

Provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the laws of physics and biology have not changed at any point in time.

Until then, your faith based claims that they were argument are ridiculous. I am not saying you cannot believe them, only that you cannot support them as scientific fact.

Uh huh. So, basically, religion is "using observations to make determinations about past events".

I use observations from history and Scripture as well as scientific evidence to support determinations about the past and I think you would call that belief based? You do the same...without any agreement or observation from history or the bible to support your religion.

 

[dad]

You might if, say, you thought that Galileo was undermining your way of life by claiming Earth wasn't at the center of the universe. Christianity has a long history of refusing to accept not just the results of science but its inner processes. Your claims against evolution could be in the same wagon.

Those are products not sciences. Science is a discipline.

? The universe according to the bible is temporary and will vanish away one day. Science cannot see all that is out in our current universe anyhow! They are not equipped to say what is a center. God said He was moving to the earth forever here to live. That makes it central.
By the way, Galileo never saw the sky in Noah's day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't read eh?

Want to dial back the condescension there, buddy?

Earlier, you said that the Cambrian explosion was evidence that living populations are created spontaneously. You are now saying that the Cambrian explosion can't be used to support anything, because the dates on it are just "belief". Which is it?

That would be your religion. None of which you can defend. So we see your attempts at deceit, lying, slander and diversion instead.

I think it's fairly easy to defend the argument that the facts don't fit your beliefs.

I cited a few biblical truths that support that idea actually. Why pretend you have a bible case? Not only that, but the 1000 year lifespans almost, and fast tree growth clearly support a nature that was not like today!

And can you demonstrate that this actually was the case?

Provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the laws of physics and biology have not changed at any point in time.

Not required. You're the one claiming they do. So far, not a single piece of evidence indicates that they ever have, and we have no reason to believe they ever have. The onus is on you, since you are the one making the claim that they changed. Please demonstrate this.

Until then, your faith based claims that they were argument are ridiculous. I am not saying you cannot believe them, only that you cannot support them as scientific fact.

Again, you're being ridiculous. You can use this logic to literally support any assertion you want. By your logic, you cannot demonstrate to me that you weren't birthed two days ago, and physics and time just worked differently for you than they did for everyone else.

I use observations from history and Scripture as well as scientific evidence to support determinations about the past and I think you would call that belief based?

So where are your observations of the laws of biology and physics changing?

You do the same...without any agreement or observation from history or the bible to support your religion.

False. I go where the facts lead. You twist the facts to fit with your beliefs. Your earlier statement that the Bible fits the science if you just make up a bunch of stuff and presume that the laws of physics and biology worked in a way that is contrary to any way that they have ever been observed to work is proof enough of that.

 

[dad]

What is anything that your scrolls have told us about the nature of the world?

That depends if you reject or accept them.

Grasshoppers have 4 legs? Bats are birds? Sacrificing a pigeon over running water cures leprosy?

It was God that healed. The things He asked them to do were to see if they obeyed. Bats are not birds in the scientific groupings that are used. In the bible, they can be classed with them. I suspect if we knew the original kind birds we would see why!
Don't pretend that the things you cannot confirm or deny suggest God or His word are wrong!

Not science. Not real.

Higher science and knowledge obviously would not be restricted to modern 'science'. Modern science is a danger to life on earth, and encrusted with areas that are pure belief based fables.

 

[Brickjectivity]

? The universe according to the bible is temporary and will vanish away one day. Science cannot see all that is out in our current universe anyhow! They are not equipped to say what is a center. God said He was moving to the earth forever here to live. That makes it central.
By the way, Galileo never saw the sky in Noah's day.

According to you its temporary, but the Bible is a library of books some of which you may not understand. They are ancient, and they do not perfectly translate into English and have comments about Astronomy that do not match physical observations. Physical observations and measurements are at the center of scientific discipline. According to you God has a physical location to move, and according to you scientists claim there is a center. Scientists don't claim to know there is a center. You also assume Noah saw the sky, but the text doesn't say so until the end of his story. You also assume that Noah's story is literal, when its clearly not. Were his story literal there would be indications of it in the text. For example the text would clearly state what Noah's son, Ham, did wrong instead of using a euphemism. As it is you can't tell what Ham did until you have read the rest of the Pentateuch.

 

[dad]

Want to dial back the condescension there, buddy?

Earlier, you said that the Cambrian explosion was evidence that living populations are created spontaneously. You are now saying that the Cambrian explosion can't be used to support anything, because the dates on it are just "belief". Which is it?

Both! Of course the religious dream dates are useless frauds. But the 'sudden' appearance of many life forms in the record supports creation also. (even though as mentioned, the fossils do not represent much of what was alive on earth at the time)

I think it's fairly easy to defend the argument that the facts don't fit your beliefs.

All science and facts fit my beliefs.

And can you demonstrate that this actually was the case?

Science cannot deny it or verify it. With all the proofs of Scripture over time, it is a credible source of what the past was like also.

Not required. You're the one claiming they do. So far, not a single piece of evidence indicates that they ever have, and we have no reason to believe they ever have. The onus is on you, since you are the one making the claim that they changed. Please demonstrate this.

In other words you don't know either way. Unless you did know you are not in any position to doubt the record. Your religion denies the record of history and the bible! Not only ignorance but denial!

Again, you're being ridiculous. You can use this logic to literally support any assertion you want. By your logic, you cannot demonstrate to me that you weren't birthed two days ago, and physics and time just worked differently for you than they did for everyone else.

False. We have records for a certain amount of known time. I find it unreasonable to doubt them for no reason.

So where are your observations of the laws of biology and physics changing?

I look at the record of the past and what we see now in how nature works. Science ca't do that since it only accepts it's inbred criteria!

... the laws of physics and biology worked in a way that is contrary to any way that they have ever been observed to work is proof enough of that.

Unless you have evidence that nature was not like Scripture and history record, you have nothing but doubts based on nothing at all. You have...religion.

 

[dad]

According to you its temporary, but the Bible is a library of books some of which you may not understand.

The bible is crystal clear in the repeated claims the heavens we know will pass away one day actually. Science of course is clueless on the issue.

They are ancient, and they do not perfectly translate into English and have comments about Astronomy that do not match physical observations.

Name one!

Physical observations and measurements are at the center of scientific discipline. According to you God has a physical location to move, and according to you scientists claim there is a center. Scientists don't claim to know there is a center.

Your comprehension fails. I never said science knows there is any center. I say they do not see all that is there, and would not have a clue what the center was. Therefore they may not claim earth is not the center.

You also assume Noah saw the sky, but the text doesn't say so until the end of his story.

You admit the text says so then! Ha.

If you have some reason to doubt he could see the sky, then post it! You must be kidding.

You also assume that Noah's story is literal, when its clearly not.

Overruled.

Were his story literal there would be indications of it in the text. For example the text would clearly state what Noah's son, Ham, did wrong instead of using a euphemism. As it is you can't tell what Ham did until you have read the rest of the Pentateuch.

False. God is a nice Guy. Maybe He didn't want to spell it out so that Noah and his family would be shamed? Maybe Ham repented? You assign evil reasons to what you do not know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Both! Of course the religious dream dates are useless frauds. But the 'sudden' appearance of many life forms in the record supports creation also. (even though as mentioned, the fossils do not represent much of what was alive on earth at the time)

Once again, you don't accept the dates of the Cambrian explosion, so on what basis do you support the assertion that the appearance of life was "sudden" in this time period?

All science and facts fit my beliefs.

Only because you twist them. Hence why you have to literally alter the fabric of reality to preserve your beliefs.

B
Science cannot deny it or verify it. With all the proofs of Scripture over time, it is a credible source of what the past was like also.

... And yet, you believe that we cannot use anything in the present to reasonably verify anything in the past?

B
In other words you don't know either way. Unless you did know you are not in any position to doubt the record. Your religion denies the record of history and the bible! Not only ignorance but denial!

You brought up the Bible. I never mentioned it. I've not denied anything, so you're talking nonsense.

B
False. We have records for a certain amount of known time. I find it unreasonable to doubt them for no reason.

So, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the laws of physics changed at some unspecified point of time for no reason, but it's not reasonable to doubt a historical record that has no corroboration?

Are you serious?

B
I look at the record of the past and what we see now in how nature works. Science ca't do that since it only accepts it's inbred criteria!

No, that's what you're doing when you reject physics in order to make the facts fir your preconceived belief. You're twisting reality to fit your criteria.

B
Unless you have evidence that nature was not like Scripture and history record, you have nothing but doubts based on nothing at all. You have...religion.

That's not how claims work. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the Scriptural account is accurate. At the moment, we have good reasons to believe it isn't, and the only way you can dismiss those reasons is by re-inventing physics and suggesting it somehow "worked differently in the past". This is a ludicrous thing to do, because you would also be required to throw out your Bible by that logic as well - since you have no way to verify that any of its claims are true, because things could always have "worked differently" in the past.

The fact that your only certainty is in the reliability of your doctrine, rather than in the reliability of actual facts, should indicate to you something. There's a reason it's called indoctrination.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The bible is crystal clear in the repeated claims the heavens we know will pass away one day actually. Science of course is clueless on the issue.

Since it is crystal clear please be more specific. Which books in the Christian canon? What verses? There are 66 books written across a thousand or more years in several languages, but its crystal clear. Which ones define the stars in the sky as part of heaven? How do you differentiate this from the other heavens, such as the third heaven mentioned by Paul? Where does the Bible say how many heavens there are? Is there a fourth? A fifth?

Name one!

Name one what? Biblical statement about Astronomy that doesn't match physical observations? Easy just look in the Psalms for the one about the sun going into its house at the end of the day. It shows zero idea about where the sun actually goes when it sets. How about the one that says the sun will rise with healing in its wings? The sun doesn't have wings, but its assumed it must have wings in order to be in the sky. Bottom line these don't agree with physical observations of today, but they did agree with observations of the long past. Maybe the sun used to have wings and used to park in a house at night? I don't think so.

I never said science knows there is any center. I say they do not see all that is there, and would not have a clue what the center was. Therefore they may not claim earth is not the center.

Its not the center of the solar system, which was what the church didn't like Galileo claiming. The sun was at the center of the solar system, but the church used threats to make Galileo recant.

You admit the text says so then! Ha.

If you have some reason to doubt he could see the sky, then post it! You must be kidding.

Its just literal textual reading. Maybe he never looked up for his whole life. According to scripture he may not have, but you and I think that is ridiculous don't we. Who never looks at the sky? Of course Noah must have looked at it, pondering how the sun got up there and the moon and what all those bright stars did. He must have wondered how they could be there just for him when they were so randomly spaced, just like a spilled box of jax.

False. God is a nice Guy. Maybe He didn't want to spell it out so that Noah and his family would be shamed? Maybe Ham repented? You assign evil reasons to what you do not know.

No evil, just not literal. You assign evil to the nonliteral. That is unfair criminalization.

 

[gnostic]

? The universe according to the bible is temporary and will vanish away one day. Science cannot see all that is out in our current universe anyhow! They are not equipped to say what is a center. God said He was moving to the earth forever here to live. That makes it central.
By the way, Galileo never saw the sky in Noah's day.

If the sky weren’t the same, as you claimed, then it is you, who has the burden of proof.

Show us the evidences that Noah’s sky and Galileo's were different.

And second, there is no centre of the universe. Where are you getting such ignorant rubbish?