Science IS religion

[dad]

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?

Well, on the basis that before that fossil array there was precious little in comparison. Under the evolution of life belief, it would have been a progression.

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

The fabric of reality is not determined by your beliefs actually, and to be frank has no connection.

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

Perhaps if there was something I might look at it. Got anything that is not FIRST predicated upon the belief it was the same!!!?

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

Yes, when asked if there is anything that supports my beliefs, history and the bible are mentioned. They oppose yours!

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?

FORGET what you may think or feel is reasonable to believe! Either science knows, and you can prove it knows the laws and nature on earth in the far past or not. What you believe does not factor into that.

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.

I do NOT reject physics. I like it! It is all well and good and useful and set in place by God. The thing is that it is not the nature early man knew, that we can prove. Nor will it be according to the bible the natural course of things in the future! What I reject is your unsupported belief that our current nature was the same nature in place in the far past on earth.

That's not how claims work. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the Scriptural account is accurate.

That is well known and tested and observed all through the existence of man! That is demonstrated. What that is not is something science can deal with! What can be demonstrated in a jewelry box does not represent all that can be demonstrated anywhere! What can be demonstrated in the confines of present day present nature, physical only, temporary science is not all that can be demonstrated!

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".

No offense, but I no more care about what you believe than you care about what I believe! That is not science.

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.

Absurd lack of reasoning. The bible covers past and future AND present! We need not toss out the present to also accept the future and past.

The fact that your only certainty is in the reliability of your doctrine, rather than in the reliability of actual facts,

You have offered NO actual facts, but have spoken of what you believe! ..Religion.

 

[dad]

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?

Rev6: 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.


Need more?

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.

I think you are referring to this verse?

Ecc 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Think about it. In an orbit, when the sun sets on earth somewhere, what does it do? The earth revolves until the sun is back where it started the next day!

How about the one that says the sun will rise with healing in its wings?

That is Jesus. If you need to gain an understanding of the bible, maybe start a thread.

The sun doesn't have wings, but its assumed it must have wings in order to be in the sky.

Jesus talked of how He wanted to gather people under His wings.

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.

Shallow and purile comprehension of the bible.

Its not the center of the solar system, which was what the church didn't like Galileo claiming.

The church may have had dislikes. Not my problem. People need bible support, not popeish preferences. The 'church' killed actual believers. Murdering religionists.

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.

Fortunately we have the rest of the bible. God created the stars FOR man to look at!

 

[dad]

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

If you claim that they were you must support that claim, since the bible seems to disagree. The rainbow, for example seemed to be something different.

I do not recall anyone noting the position of the planets back then? Who knows but that God realigned some things at some point? The issue is not what you have a hunch about or believe! The issue is you claiming knowledge about what you do not know.

And second, there is no centre of the universe.

Says...who?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

I don't NEED BELIEF, silly person! I have FACTS-- something you seem unacquainted with...

Science and it's METHODS has been SUCCESSFUL for 1000's of human-years.

SCIENCE has created the very computer you use to deny SCIENCE.

I don't need to "defend" what isn't belief.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

"origin science"? What on EARTH is THAT? More magical DELUSION-SPEAK?

LMAO!

 

[Subduction Zone]

"origin science"? What on EARTH is THAT? More magical DELUSION-SPEAK?

LMAO!

dad does not understand what science is so he has to rename the parts that he cannot afford to understand. But then even simple math is beyond him at times. Ask him about parallax and distant stars some day.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Rev6: 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.


Need more?

You said it would be clear. How are stars going to fall to Earth when they're so much bigger. You just made my point about there being astronomical verses that don't match physical observations, plus you ignored the other verses about heaven that don't have stars in them. You don't remember a verse about someone being caught up into the third heaven. Where's that? Does it have stars, too? Are they little and can fall to earth, too? Another thing is Genesis doesn't say what kind of stars its talking about whether they are Revelation sized stars or stars that match physical observations (they don't probably hint hint).

I think you are referring to this verse?

Ecc 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Think about it. In an orbit, when the sun sets on earth somewhere, what does it do? The earth revolves until the sun is back where it started the next day!

Songs have poetic license. Its not a crime for the sun to have wings in a song. That's all you had to say, but no you had to actually try to defend the Psalm scientifically. Are you just in love with personal pain? Why take on such an impossible case to argue?

That is Jesus. If you need to gain an understanding of the bible, maybe start a thread.

Unless you're Jewish. Then its talking about renewal. Its only Jesus if you're in the Jesus universe. James by the way says that the Sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant, so what is the biblical perspective on the sun? Healing wings or scorching killer? You can easily see it is not ever a Science text. It does not describe the physical origin of our planet. Its physical descriptions can be inconsistent, because its not going for physical descriptions of carnal matters. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..." etc. Genesis is part of a 5 pack of laws. Its a 5 pack about the beginning of Israel. Hence "In the beginning" is indeed not about the beginning of planet Earth. The flood is not about anything else other than that same thing.

Jesus talked of how He wanted to gather people under His wings.

And yet he didn't have visible wings. Could it be that he was not describing physical things? I think it could. Maybe he wasn't even talking about Science! Which means...its win win. You win and I win, because we don't have to argue about evolution anymore since its not an issue that matters for Christians. Evolution is its own thing, and Christianity is its own thing; and Christianity and Jesus can work just find with Evolution or not.

Shallow and purile comprehension of the bible.

That's a vicious sock puppet style of an argument. Maybe you had a weak moment.

The church may have had dislikes. Not my problem. People need bible support, not popeish preferences. The 'church' killed actual believers. Murdering religionists.

So did the Calvinists, the Lutherans and the other big shots. Nevertheless love continued. Its all the political stuff and the ministers and whatnot that got dirty. Anyways love can cover a multitude of sins even pope sized ones. The much worse problem is this kind of brittle insistence that this or that is the dogma to use. Also fear mongering about evolution. Evolution is not an attack on scripture. its completely unrelated.

Fortunately we have the rest of the bible. God created the stars FOR man to look at!

Bibles contain no medical information, nothing scientific, nothing helpful to someone trying to understand physical nature. All of those things require the discipline of science. Its got no blueprints for microscopes, no nothing. Zilch.

 

[siti]

How do you differentiate this from the other heavens, such as the third heaven mentioned by Paul?

At the risk of inserting myself into this fruitless battle of wits with an unarmed opponent again (not you, of course, @Brickjectivity), I thought this was an interesting question. The best (at least most plausible to me) explanation I have come across for the "third heaven" Paul mentioned is that it really refers to three uses of the word rather than three "heavens" as such...the first would be the sky between the earth and the blue bit - where the birds fly...the second would be the "heaven" above that - where the stars are and the third is the "heaven" where God lives - and whence - if we take the account of Paul as autobiographical, he was "caught up" to - most likely some kind of extraordinary mystical/spiritual/psychological experience he went through (IMO - but its fine of people interpret it as another 'realm' where an immaterial deity 'resides'). Anyway, the account is in 2 Corinthians 12:2.

And if that's right, there would only be three "heavens" - which kind of makes sense.

 

[Brickjectivity]

At the risk of inserting myself into this fruitless battle of wits with an unarmed opponent again (not you, of course, @Brickjectivity), I thought this was an interesting question. The best (at least most plausible to me) explanation I have come across for the "third heaven" Paul mentioned is that it really refers to three uses of the word rather than three "heavens" as such...the first would be the sky between the earth and the blue bit - where the birds fly...the second would be the "heaven" above that - where the stars are and the third is the "heaven" where God lives - and whence - if we take the account of Paul as autobiographical, he was "caught up" to - most likely some kind of extraordinary mystical/spiritual/psychological experience he went through (IMO - but its fine of people interpret it as another 'realm' where an immaterial deity 'resides'). Anyway, the account is in 2 Corinthians 12:2.

And if that's right, there would only be three "heavens" - which kind of makes sense.

Its pretty ironic, too, that this person is caught up and hears things that aren't lawful to talk about and then tells Paul or tells us that it happened. Its a bit of humor. The telling itself is unlawful if it has truly occurred or at least pointless since nothing can be revealed except for the greatness of the hearer. Hence it is useless information and mere boasting to talk about these things which seems to be his point.

 

[dad]

I don't NEED BELIEF, silly person! I have FACTS-- something you seem unacquainted with...

Science and it's METHODS has been SUCCESSFUL for 1000's of human-years.

SCIENCE has created the very computer you use to deny SCIENCE.

I don't need to "defend" what isn't belief.

You say you do not need belief but post nothing else. --Religion.

 

[siti]

Hence it is useless information and mere boasting to talk about these things which seems to be his point.

I think he might have been grappling with the problem of trying to explain an inexplicable experience...not all mystics turn into cult leaders...and those that do have the impossible task of attempting to establish religious authority on the basis of experience(s) that are not only unique to themselves and therefore inaccessible to any of their followers, but also innately indescribable in (normal) human language...and therefore entirely unsuitable for establishing religious authority. It is a conundrum because the experience tells them they have received a message from a divine source, but the message is not in any form that can be transmitted to others...

...So there's an outpouring of voluminous texts in flowery (even for the time) language, or great treatises on religious topics that really end up saying nothing of very much substance to most readers...and yet they somehow have the appearance of "great wisdom" or at least sufficiently "great wisdom" to bamboozle those eagerly seeking some kind of "ear-tickling" religious "sagacity"...

Anyway, from my reading of "Paul's" experiences, I suspect he had some profound mystical or spiritual experiences which he then attempted to work into his newfound Christian religious paradigm. In the end, his religious zeal trumped his "genuine mysticism" and he became a cult leader. His letters are those of a cult leader but there are clues of another, more profoundly "spiritual", side to his life.

 

[dad]

dad...rename the parts

Sciences that deal with where life or the universe started deal with origins. Darwin's book dealt with origins (Origin of the species). Talking about sciences that claim to cover issues about origins is not renaming the sciences, it is just identifying them.

 

[We Never Know]

Sciences that deal with where life or the universe started deal with origins. Darwin's book dealt with origins (Origin of the species). Talking about sciences that claim to cover issues about origins is not renaming the sciences, it is just identifying them.

Evolution doesn't deal with origins. It deals with the "evolution" of life after it started. That's that, the end.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You say you do not need belief but post nothing else. --Religion.

Prove it-- science has a 1000 year track record.

Religion? Has a 10,000 year record of failure.

 

[dad]

You said it would be clear. How are stars going to fall to Earth when they're so much bigger.

You have no idea how big stars are or how far away. All distances involve the belief time exists the same out in the universe as here around the solar system.

You just made my point about there being astronomical verses that don't match physical observations, plus you ignored the other verses about heaven that don't have stars in them.

Not all references to heaven need to mention stars. For example in the Lord's prayer it mentions no stars..'on earth, as it is in heaven...'

You don't remember a verse about someone being caught up into the third heaven. Where's that? Does it have stars, too?

That is where God dwells, above this universe I assume. Stars are way down IN the universe! Ha.

Are they little and can fall to earth, too?

The star of Bethlehem was small enough to guide men to a house! I do not recall the distances or sizes of stars being given?

Another thing is Genesis doesn't say what kind of stars its talking about whether they are Revelation sized stars or stars that match physical observations (they don't probably hint hint).

You have no idea of the size of stars.

Songs have poetic license. Its not a crime for the sun to have wings in a song. That's all you had to say, but no you had to actually try to defend the Psalm scientifically. Are you just in love with personal pain? Why take on such an impossible case to argue?

The pain of not comprehending Scripture and being unable to do so is not mine actually. The bible says that God and His spirit are needed to unlock the word of God for us. Otherwise it largely remains hidden to us.

Unless you're Jewish. Then its talking about renewal. Its only Jesus if you're in the Jesus universe. James by the way says that the Sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant, so what is the biblical perspective on the sun? Healing wings or scorching killer?

What is it's perspective of Jesus? Lion or Lamb? As I said you need to be able to understand what you read.

You can easily see it is not ever a Science text. It does not describe the physical origin of our planet.

The first verse in the bible does that!

Its physical descriptions can be inconsistent, because its not going for physical descriptions of carnal matters. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..." etc. Genesis is part of a 5 pack of laws. Its a 5 pack about the beginning of Israel. Hence "In the beginning" is indeed not about the beginning of planet Earth. The flood is not about anything else other than that same thing.

The first verse makes it clear it is about the earth actually! While there are greater spiritual truths, that does not mean the physical is ignored in the bible. Spiritual gifts He gives are real gifts, and spiritual weapons are real weapons. Far more powerful than physical ones.

And yet he didn't have visible wings

The verse never mentioned visible wings. Jesus flew! He will fly down to earth again soon one day also! That power He uses to fly covers His people.

. Could it be that he was not describing physical things?

When Jesus mentioned the hen that was physical. When He said 'like' that should clue us in that this was LIKE something, rather than being that physical event.

I think it could. Maybe he wasn't even talking about Science! Which means...its win win. You win and I win, because we don't have to argue about evolution anymore since its not an issue that matters for Christians.

There can be no ignoring that the actual world was created by Him and all things that were made were made by Him. There is only believing or not. There cannot be a win win. One side must go down to total ignominious eternal defeat.

Evolution is its own thing, and Christianity is its own thing; and Christianity and Jesus can work just find with Evolution or not.

I guess that depends how you define 'christianity'. If one defined it as a church system that curried favor of governments and men and had no real belief in Scripture anyhow, then yes, they can work fine with lies. Jesus does not work with diabolical lies that He is not the creator though.

So did the Calvinists, the Lutherans and the other big shots.

So did the Democrats and etc.
The point of the story was that when we are faced with a system that is engaged in very bad things, we should point it out. I point out that the fables about creation from science, falsely so called is a very bad thing.

Also fear mongering about evolution. Evolution is not an attack on scripture. its completely unrelated.

False. It is an attack on truth and God. It keeps people away from God and believing that He made it all.

Bibles contain no medical information,

It contains the cure to every disease and death itself actually.

nothing scientific, nothing helpful to someone trying to understand physical nature.

You cannot understand nature without it.

All of those things require the discipline of science.

Origins sciences darken the understanding. It is a religion of darkness and the truth has NO place in it.

Its got no blueprints for microscopes, no nothing. Zilch.

It has the blueprints for the coming kingdom of God on earth.

 

[dad]

Evolution doesn't deal with origins. It deals with the "evolution" of life after it started. That's that, the end.

Read it and weep!

 

[We Never Know]

Read it and weep!

Yes. Species came after life. Again that's that, the end.

 

[dad]

Yes. Species came after life. Again that's that, the end.

The main issue is claiming man came from animals, such as the same ancestor a flatworm came from! That was after life in your fantasy. (y the way origins claims need not deal with earliest origins!)

Will you at least admit that the creation as told in Genesis cannot fit with either abiogenesis or evolution of life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sciences that deal with where life or the universe started deal with origins. Darwin's book dealt with origins (Origin of the species). Talking about sciences that claim to cover issues about origins is not renaming the sciences, it is just identifying them.

Nope, but then you do not seem to understand what science is and how it is done. Would you care to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The main issue is claiming man came from animals, such as the same ancestor a flatworm came from! That was after life in your fantasy. (y the way origins claims need not deal with earliest origins!)

Will you at least admit that the creation as told in Genesis cannot fit with either abiogenesis or evolution of life?

Since you are an animal why do you doubt this?