Science IS religion

[Subduction Zone]

He does not want to understand. If he did his world falls apart.

Oh I know that. It appears that he is not even a true believer. A true believer would not be so afraid.

 

[gnostic]

The sun is not a star in the bible, only the belief system of cosmology. A star did come to earth and led people to a house in a town. No one got burned.

The Sun has always being the a star, PERIOD.

Just because the bible doesn't call the Sun "star", is because they were to ignorant to know what stars really are, dad.

All you are doing is making apologetic excuses that are not logical and not scientific.

BEFORE the development of the earliest telescopes, everyone thought everything they could see in the sky was the entire universe.

At most, a person can see (without any telescope) 2000 to 3000 stars in the sky in their location. Those stars that we can see without the telescope, are only the brightest stars that we can in close proximity to our Earth.

That's only a tiny fraction to the number of stars in the 400 billion stars in our Milky Way.

Even with these earlier telescopes, that allow astronomers to see more stars, no one knew there were other galaxies other than the Milky Way, before 1919.

Before 1919, astronomers with their telescopes thought Andromeda and Triangulum were only nebulas within the Milky Way.

In 1919, Edwin Hubble using the newly constructed Hooker Telescope, the biggest telescope at that time, discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum were galaxies of their own, respectively 2 and 3 million light years away from Earth.

Hubble's discovery have important impact to our knowledge about astronomy and the universe itself, Milky Way isn't the only galaxy in the universe.

The Sun isn't the only yellow dwarf star in our Milky Way, nor that of the rest of the universe.

The bible had no knowledge of the size of the universe, nor did anyone know the nature of our sun or that of any other star.

You are either completely ignorance or you are completely delusion if you think the bible have any real knowledge of nature, PERIOD.

 

[gnostic]

He does not care! It is his goal to antagonize with no intention of listening to others. Look at all the work that others have offered and he makes fun of it. Having lived in the deep south I have seen and heard so many like him. Many of his type misuse the bible for monetary gain or political power or control. He is just a sad dad. The rest of us will respect your knowledge and contribution but dad evidently never will. It is his loss.

Yes, I understand the case.

There are some Australians who think the same ways as he and other creationists do in the US.

Perhaps the biggest high profile Australian creationist is Ken Ham. It is fortunate for us in Australia that Ham left the country, but unfortunate for you in the US since he has migrated to Kentucky.

I just hoped the US will catch and jail Ham for tax fraud and tax evasion, as he did in Queensland.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand the case.

There are some Australians who think the same ways as he and other creationists do in the US.

Perhaps the biggest high profile Australian creationist is Ken Ham. It is fortunate for us in Australia that Ham left the country, but unfortunate for you in the US since he has migrated to Kentucky.

I just hoped the US will catch and jail Ham for tax fraud and tax evasion, as he did in Queensland.

Wow, so creationism and a total lack of logic is not all that he shares with Kent Hovind.

EDIT: I thought that I could find this but Google heavily biases my searches for U.S. sources.

 

[dad]

Such a claim depends upon scientific principles and observations which you don't believe in, so your claim is groundless.

Of course we have observation, cut the false claims. We observe from the fishbowl here, IN the solar system area.

As far as the biblical canon is concerned there is no delay between what is seen and what occurs.

Actually the stars were created for times and seasons for us. That involves delays! If a year occurred in a moment it would not be a year.

There's no reason in biblical canon to expect things like redshift.

You have no idea what causes redhift in deep space. You only know what causes it here.

The rainbow comes from the LORD every time it appears after rain, miraculously. In the Bible the rainbow doesn't come from light entering crystals, nor from reflections nor passing through solid objects.

Says who? Just because man finds out how light is parted to form a rainbow, does not mean God didn't know.

The sun is also a miracle every day. So does is light, completely separate from the sun and stars and needs neither to appear. The sun happens to rule the day, and the stars and moon happen to rule the night; but they don't make daylight.

I think we can agree that stars do not 'make daylight'. So?

Nothing in the Bible is scientific.

The bible covers the past and future and creation and the spiritual and eternal life etc etc. Science is unable to cover that at all. So of course we cannot reduce the bible to just science of today! The science it has is higher than man's wisdom and science.

If it were up to the Bible nobody would even bother to make observations, and nobody did for many centuries.

If they included God, they might understand what they were observing!

Claim? Observe, report, consider, announce results because Science is a discipline, not a religion.

Science is a discipline that adheres to a narrow set of criteria and methods. We do not know that those physical methods apply to the far past or future or deep space. They apply to building a bridge perhaps, or a radio, or a plane. When you claim they go to infinity and beyond you step in it!

 

[dad]

YI will gladly support my claims...

You wasted scores of posts. Start anytime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You wasted scores of posts. Start anytime.

I started once. You ran away. Do you promise not to run away again?

 

[dad]

The Sun has always being the a star, PERIOD.

Just because the bible doesn't call the Sun "star", is because they were to ignorant to know what stars really are, dad.

All you are doing is making apologetic excuses that are not logical and not scientific.

You apparently cannot face the fact that you do not know distances to stars therefore no sizes etc etc etc etc.

You must have time and space the same all the way and you have no clue if they are or not!

BEFORE the development of the earliest telescopes, everyone thought everything they could see in the sky was the entire universe.

At most, a person can see (without any telescope) 2000 to 3000 stars in the sky in their location. Those stars that we can see without the telescope, are only the brightest stars that we can in close proximity to our Earth.

That's only a tiny fraction to the number of stars in the 400 billion stars in our Milky Way.
[/QUOTE] Not one of which you know the size of or distance to.

Even with these earlier telescopes, that allow astronomers to see more stars, no one knew there were other galaxies other than the Milky Way, before 1919.

Before 1919, astronomers with their telescopes thought Andromeda and Triangulum were only nebulas within the Milky Way.

In 1919, Edwin Hubble using the newly constructed Hooker Telescope, the biggest telescope at that time, discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum were galaxies of their own, respectively 2 and 3 million light years away from Earth.

False. Years means time. You do not know time exists out there the same. Try to face it. Without time as we know it there nothing can take the years you claim.

Hubble's discovery have important impact to our knowledge about astronomy and the universe itself, Milky Way isn't the only galaxy in the universe.

Galaxy really loses meaning when we do not know how far away of big any of those little points of light are!

The Sun isn't the only yellow dwarf star in our Milky Way, nor that of the rest of the universe.

You are reciting tenets of your belief system, and that has no value outside your head/religion.

The bible had knowledge of the size of the universe, nor did anyone know the nature of our sun or that of any other star.

Since He separated water on earth from water on the far side of where the stars are, He had an exact idea of how big it was.

You are either completely ignorance or you are completely delusion if you think the bible have any real knowledge of nature, PERIOD.

Not only the temporary nature we live in, but the future and past nature also! Science...eat your heart out!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Of course we have observation, cut the false claims. We observe from the fishbowl here, IN the solar system area.

The existence of the solar system is a scientific observation which clashes with biblical canon descriptions of astronomy. By accepting that there is a solar system you taint yourself with disagreement with literal reading of Genesis. You've partially adopted scientific skepticism. Perhaps you should repent if that seems sinful to you.

You have no idea what causes redhift in deep space. You only know what causes it here.

Redshift is not a biblical principle. It is only discovered and tested through scientific discipline -- careful measuring and study of the measurements. Redshift is observable in nature, but its not mentioned in bible verses. The very idea of redshift is contrary to biblical descriptions of astronomy. In Genesis the light is independent of sun and stars, so it cannot be affected by their distances; but fortunately Genesis doesn't claim to be talking about planet Earth or its solar system and is generally agnostic of planets. Its just talking about earth, the land of Israel, specifically the formation of Israel. Taking Genesis out of its culture and imposing upon it the burden of describing a planet's formation that is folly.

Says who? Just because man finds out how light is parted to form a rainbow, does not mean God didn't know.

In Genesis rainbows are set into the sky by the LORD. According to biblical canon taken literally that is how they appear with no reason given to look into it any further. Scientific observations indicate rainbows are produced by prisms, leading to knowledge that daylight is produced by the excitation of atoms and comes from the sun and other hot materials. None of this is compatible with a literal reading of Genesis. It denies that daylight comes from the sun.

In Genesis day appears without stars or sun, and the sun merely rules the day rather than causing it. This is in sharp contrast to Egyptian belief which has the sun as the bringer of the day. Genesis though has the day independent of the sun until the sun is created to rule the day. Its the reverse of Egyptian dogma and has no bearing on or anything to say against evolutionary theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You apparently cannot face the fact that you do not know distances to stars therefore no sizes etc etc etc etc.

You must have time and space the same all the way and you have no clue if they are or not!

BEFORE the development of the earliest telescopes, everyone thought everything they could see in the sky was the entire universe.

At most, a person can see (without any telescope) 2000 to 3000 stars in the sky in their location. Those stars that we can see without the telescope, are only the brightest stars that we can in close proximity to our Earth.

That's only a tiny fraction to the number of stars in the 400 billion stars in our Milky Way.
Not one of which you know the size of or distance to.


False. Years means time. You do not know time exists out there the same. Try to face it. Without time as we know it there nothing can take the years you claim.
Galaxy really loses meaning when we do not know how far away of big any of those little points of light are!
You are reciting tenets of your belief system, and that has no value outside your head/religion.
Since He separated water on earth from water on the far side of where the stars are, He had an exact idea of how big it was.
Not only the temporary nature we live in, but the future and past nature also! Science...eat your heart out!

I see that dad still does not understand parallax which alone refutes his mythical beliefs. Time is not a factor in parallax, so he needs to find some other lame excuse. The most distant object measured solely with parallax is over 30,000 light years away. Negating his claim of a 6,000 year old universe. Unless he openly states that his God lies:

What's the farthest object as determined only by parallax?

 

[gnostic]

Try understanding this concept, you either can prove it or heavily support your claims with evidence or not! Trying to avoid supporting the mother of all beliefs you use for all models of the far past is simply absurd.

dad, you are the one who is making the claims that the world was different and have different law of nature to the world of today.

You, dad. Such claims therefore put you in the spot, where you need to back your claims with evidences. You haven’t. All you have been doing is demanding evidences from other people.

The burden of proof is your responsibility because it is your claim.

If you don’t want the burden of proof, then stop making one silly claim after the other silly claim.

You have been digging a deep hole for yourself, and you pretending it is not of your making.

No one is responsible for your own fantasy that you have made up.

 

[dad]

The existence of the solar system is a scientific observation which clashes with biblical canon descriptions of astronomy. By accepting that there is a solar system you taint yourself with disagreement with literal reading of Genesis. You've partially adopted scientific skepticism. Perhaps you should repent if that seems sinful to you.

Except, you just made that up, or have some mistaken notion on what the bible says.

Redshift is not a biblical principle. It is only discovered and tested through scientific discipline -- careful measuring and study of the measurements. Redshift is observable in nature, but its not mentioned in bible verses.

Light is mentioned. Light does stuff. Man finds out more of what it does (in this nature). There is a lot about light the bible tells us that science doesn't know. When it started here. That it has a home. That it gets 'parted'. That there is other kind of light than we know about...etc.

Science today seeing how light behaves on earth at the moment is nothing strange to the bible. The bible said knowledge wlil be increased. That qualifies.

The very idea of redshift is contrary to biblical descriptions of astronomy.

The very idea of you trying to apply what works in the fishbowl to unknown space and time is evidence that you like to tell tales...and have a religion.

In Genesis the light is independent of sun and stars, so it cannot be affected by their distances;

Going for a record? Wrong again. There was also light before those were here! In New Jerusalem in the future, we need no light from the sun at all! Once again you show how the past and future are at odds with the present.

but fortunately Genesis doesn't claim to be talking about planet Earth or its solar system and is generally agnostic of planets. Its just talking about earth, the land of Israel, specifically the formation of Israel.

Nope. Fill the earth means more than fill the garden on earth. Fill the earth means more than one land that came many may centuries after creation or Adam! Just because later the word may have been associated by Hebrews with the land does not mean Scripture is limited by that.

Taking Genesis out of its culture and imposing upon it the burden of describing a planet's formation that is folly.

Pretending God did not create the earth or that it means just Israel is patently ridiculous.

In Genesis rainbows are set into the sky by the LORD. According to biblical canon taken literally that is how they appear with no reason given to look into it any further.

When men seek God, they find more about His creation. When men reject God, they invent lies about it.

Scientific observations indicate rainbows are produced by prisms, leading to knowledge that daylight is produced by the excitation of atoms and comes from the sun and other hot materials. None of this is compatible with a literal reading of Genesis. It denies that daylight comes from the sun.

You confirm the sun does give light and is for light actually.

In Genesis day appears without stars or sun, and the sun merely rules the day rather than causing it.

The sun actually was made at the same time as the stars! So yes there were days before either were made. And yes, the sun stepped in to fill the shoes after it was created. The sun never caused the first days! When it came along or rather was created, it THEN started to rule what a day was. The bible perfectly describes this.

This is in sharp contrast to Egyptian belief which has the sun as the bringer of the day. Genesis though has the day independent of the sun until the sun is created to rule the day. Its the reverse of Egyptian dogma and has no bearing on or anything to say against evolutionary theory.

I agree your concept of history and creation has little to do with evo fables. However the fact that God created the heavens and earth and man does.

Gong!

 

[dad]

I see that dad still does not understand parallax which alone refutes his mythical beliefs. Time is not a factor in parallax, so he needs to find some other lame excuse. The most distant object measured solely with parallax is over 30,000 light years away. Negating his claim of a 6,000 year old universe. Unless he openly states that his God lies:

What's the farthest object as determined only by parallax?

Even if, for the sake of argument, that distance was correct, and it probably is not since time affects space. But assuming it was the distance you claim, that does not tell us how much time light would take to get from there! All you can measure is how much time is involved with light moving in space here! Ha.

 

[dad]

dad, you are the one who is making the claims that the world was different and have different law of nature to the world of today.

History and the bible tell me that actually. YOU are the one claiming it was always the same.

So we see an absolutely desperate attempt at all costs to avoid having to prove it because you can't. You do not know.

 

[gnostic]

Science is a discipline that adheres to a narrow set of criteria and methods. We do not know that those physical methods apply to the far past or future or deep space.

You are still making false claims about the natural law being different in the past, and still refused to give evidences that support your absurd claim.

You still don't understand the claimant of claim that are different to exist knowledge, then this claimant MUST provide the evidences to support his claim...

...this claimant is YOU, dad.

You are the one making claim that the universe was different, no

If you can't support your claim with any physical and verifiable evidences, then your claim is not true.

No claim is ever treated as true by default. And that rule also apply to science. Whenever there is a new hypothesis, new model or new concept, they are never true until there are evidences to back it up.

There are not much differences in the universe today than 6000 years ago or even 10,000 years ago. Not with the Sun, not even the Earth itself.

History and the bible tell me that actually. YOU are the one claiming it was always the same.

So we see an absolutely desperate attempt at all costs to avoid having to prove it because you can't. You do not know.

This is about science, not history.

And even with history, the Bible get it wrong or proven to be myths, not history.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Except, you just made that up, or have some mistaken notion on what the bible says.

We're talking about your claim that science is a religion, but its not. You just said that Genesis was talking about our solar system, but nobody knew about the solar system until the telescope was invented. People thought that everything in the sky was stretched over the land, until finally they were forced to admit the land was shaped as a spheroid. Genesis contained no hints about solar systems. Solar systems are discovered through scientific skeptical methods only and are irrelevant to Genesis. They cannot be an attack upon it.

Light is mentioned. Light does stuff. Man finds out more of what it does (in this nature). There is a lot about light the bible tells us that science doesn't know. When it started here. That it has a home. That it gets 'parted'. That there is other kind of light than we know about...etc.

Science today seeing how light behaves on earth at the moment is nothing strange to the bible. The bible said knowledge wlil be increased. That qualifies.

It does a lot more in Genesis than the sun does which merely keeps time. Only in science and in the eye of the common man does the sun produce light. In Genesis it searches out the inmost parts of the person, separating good from bad, not that you seem aware of this most precious aspect of Genesis or to care what its really for.

The very idea of you trying to apply what works in the fishbowl to unknown space and time is evidence that you like to tell tales...and have a religion.

You're monologuing again, revealing your nefarious plan to destroy real science by mischaracterizing it.

Going for a record? Wrong again. There was also light before those were here! In New Jerusalem in the future, we need no light from the sun at all! Once again you show how the past and future are at odds with the present.

I don't confuse physical creation with the creation of ministries like a certain person does who started this bizarre thread and is enjoying the attention. Can't you attack something else for a change? How about arguing against pennies? We don't need those.

Nope. Fill the earth means more than fill the garden on earth. Fill the earth means more than one land that came many may centuries after creation or Adam! Just because later the word may have been associated by Hebrews with the land does not mean Scripture is limited by that.

I'll let you know when we agree about what scripture is, but its seems we don't. All I can say is Science and Evolution are not an attack against scripture or faith. They also don't inspire isolation between people on the basis of beliefs. Rather science as it is observation based is something that people of different beliefs can agree on and do. Maybe that is threatening to certain ministerial positions, but those positions can pivot. They can join the force for good.

Pretending God did not create the earth or that it means just Israel is patently ridiculous.

I didn't do that. I said Genesis isn't about the creation of our planet. Its a different thing to say. Its obviously about the creation of Israel as are all 5 of the Pentateuch. Henry Morris perceived an attack that never existed. He got an allergy to grass and hay. There's no attack on Genesis from Evolutionary Theory. Young Earth Creationists, such as yourself, are reacting to a non-enemy, an ally.

When men seek God, they find more about His creation. When men reject God, they invent lies about it.

No. Scripture says that men with itching ears gather teachers around them to tell them what they want to hear. That's called paid ministry. It also says they won't endure sound doctrine. That's means they won't study and learn. The appearance of Calculus, Physics, Astronomy and Biology are unveilings of the world around us, and Scientists have answered the responsibility to study. Somebody has to do it.

You confirm the sun does give light and is for light actually.

Genesis doesn't and contradicts the physical observations that our light comes from the sun moon and stars, for it says the day comes before they are created. Actually since its not about the creation of our planet it doesn't contradict unless you take it out of context and shove it into a Science text, ignoring its very important messages that are unrelated to young earth creationism.

The sun actually was made at the same time as the stars! So yes there were days before either were made. And yes, the sun stepped in to fill the shoes after it was created. The sun never caused the first days! When it came along or rather was created, it THEN started to rule what a day was. The bible perfectly describes this.

Again. See above paragraphs about Genesis, days, light. Not a physical description of our solar system at all, nor is it intended as such.

I agree your concept of history and creation has little to do with evo fables. However the fact that God created the heavens and earth and man does.

Again what does it matter how the physical world is created as it has diddly squat to do with repentance. People don't repent on the basis of miracles. Jesus says even if someone comes back from the dead nobody listens. Repentance happens inside the person and is a creation which begins with light separating from darkness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if, for the sake of argument, that distance was correct, and it probably is not since time affects space. But assuming it was the distance you claim, that does not tell us how much time light would take to get from there! All you can measure is how much time is involved with light moving in space here! Ha.

Your inability to understand the concept of space-time does not refute the argument. To do that you would first need to learn the basics of science. Once again all you have is denial of evidence.

This is why you need to learn the basics of science. People present evidence you put your fingers in your ears and say "Nuh uh!" and pretend that you have refuted an argument. Until you can support your claims you are effectively wrong by default.

Can you tell me why you are so afraid to learn even how science is done? It appears that you realize once that you begin to learn the only honest conclusion that you can come to is that your beliefs are mythical. That would explain your fear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

History and the bible tell me that actually. YOU are the one claiming it was always the same.

So we see an absolutely desperate attempt at all costs to avoid having to prove it because you can't. You do not know.

Yet history itself disagrees with your book of myths. For example we know when the Exodus supposedly happened that the Kingdom of Egypt existed far past the Red Sea. Why we know that there was no Exodus has very little to do with the hard sciences and is more history and archaeology than anything else. Your book of myths fails again and again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Can you tell me why you are so afraid to learn even how science is done? It appears that you realize once that you begin to learn the only honest conclusion that you can come to is that your beliefs are mythical. That would explain your fear.

Yeah, I know. So here is something fun. It is a pdf about the effect of prayer. You don't have to read it all.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/1/11/pdf
The dirty summary is that prayer can help people cope with sickness. Not the sickness itself. Now I used to be an atheist, but I tried something out. I started believing in God and it helps me cope as me. Now I know, I am not rational and all that. I don't care, I feel better now. I am still a skeptic, I don't believe in woo, CT and what not. I don't use my belief in God to be right and claim that you are wrong. I just figure out that believing in a God, i.e. a fair creator of the universe, who gave us humans a fighting chance, made me feel better.
My general approach is this
Unitarian Universalist Association
More here:
Unitarian Universalism's Seven Principles
Unitarian Universalism's Six Sources of Inspiration and Spiritual Growth

Now I am religious and I feel better. Is that delusional on some level, properly, but it works for me. I haven't changed that much otherwise, I am still a humanist, secular, accept science in the everyday life, believe in democracy and human rights.

Strip away the claim to power, that some people use religion for and use it for betterment regardless of actual faith. Even an atheist like you could fit in with Unitarian Universalism.
And yes, I am earnest. This running debate of science versus religion might be better viewed as different cultures and their views on science and religion and not just as a strong versus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I know. So here is something fun. It is a pdf about the effect of prayer. You don't have to read it all.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/1/11/pdf
The dirty summary is that prayer can help people cope with sickness. Not the sickness itself. Now I used to be an atheist, but I tried something out. I started believing in God and it helps me cope as me. Now I know, I am not rational and all that. I don't care, I feel better now. I am still a skeptic, I don't believe in woo, CT and what not. I don't use my belief in God to be right and claim that you are wrong. I just figure out that believing in a God, i.e. a fair creator of the universe, who gave us humans a fighting chance, made me feel better.
My general approach is this
Unitarian Universalist Association
More here:
Unitarian Universalism's Seven Principles
Unitarian Universalism's Six Sources of Inspiration and Spiritual Growth

Now I am religious and I feel better. Is that delusional on some level, properly, but it works for me. I haven't changed that much otherwise, I am still a humanist, secular, accept science in the everyday life, believe in democracy and human rights.

Strip away the claim to power, that some people use religion for and use it for betterment regardless of actual faith. Even an atheist like you could fit in with Unitarian Universalism.
And yes, I am earnest. This running debate of science versus religion might be better viewed as different cultures and their views on science and religion and not just as a strong versus.

Yes, nice thoughts can help one through tough times. That has more to say about the human condition than the existence of a god itself. Having positive thoughts makes it easier to cope with hardships. That is not really evidence for a god. When it comes to intercessory prayer that has been found to be largely ineffective or even may have a slight negative effect. But I can see how positive thoughts can have a beneficial effect whether one believes in a god or not.

Also the post that you responded to was aimed at dad whose beliefs are mythical. He believes the long ago refuted myths of Genesis. That does not mean that all gods have been refuted. That has not been claimed. One can refute specific "god"s but once cannot refute all concepts of god.