Science IS religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, I also doubt intercessory prayer. As for if there is a God or not, I don't know and I don't care. In the end as you pointed out it is about the human condition.
As for the bold, correct, but don't tell that to the really strong non-believers, who know there are no gods, period!
So my God confirms in effect to the God of the Gaps and I will admit that.

 

[gnostic]

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!

(A) Without the modern telescopes, using either or both optical telescopes and radio telescopes as they do at observatories or the space telescopes, then no I cannot measure distance of stars.

I cannot simply use a home telescope to make such measurements, because it would require me to do a fair bit of computation to get rough estimates of distance.

But with the modern observatories’ telescopes, much of the measurements (plus computation or maths) are done by computers.

And (B) before Galileo, there were no telescopes, so all observation and cataloguing of astronomical objects were done by the naked eye. So all stars and planets viewed in those times (before Galileo) were only those that were visible to them, and these were normally stars close to Earth.

The nearest star that is visible to the naked eye, is the Alpha Centauri, at 4.37 light years away; Proxima Centauri is actually closest star to earth at 4.24 light years, but it is too faint to be visible to the naked eye, so you would need either a very good binoculars or decent home telescope to see Proxima Centauri.

The most distant star that we can see with the naked eye is V762 Cas, which is located within the Cassiopeia constellation, at a distance of 16,308 light years away.

My points with the stars’ distances, closest and furthest that are visible to us, is that any star further away than V762 Cas, cannot be seen unless you have a telescope.

All those visible stars have already been measured and catalogued by modern observatories, like their distances, redshifts, angular measurements (eg declination, parallax, etc) and masses.

That you think distances cannot be measured, is only you projecting your own ignorance upon others.

Seriously, dad, you really need to stop making false claim after false claim after even more false claims. All you are really doing is making total fool of yourself (with your ignorance), as well as a liar.

Do you know why so many people arguing with you?

You don’t know much as you believe you do, and you are making things up. Others have caught you with so many lies and mistakes, that no one can take you seriously anymore.

You are like the boy who cried wolf one too many times, that the people in his village will no longer believe him when he is finally telling the truth because a real wolf finally appeared.

 

[dad]

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.

This is about science, not history.

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

Desperate at any costs to avoid offering support for what is used as a main ingredient for all 'science' models about origins. OK. Admit it is belief based.

 

[dad]

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.

Genesis was talking about the stars and moon and sun. As for planets, as I have said, they may have been re positioned later for all you or I know.

People thought that everything in the sky was stretched over the land,

Hey, science thinks space it stretched.

until finally they were forced to admit the land was shaped as a spheroid.

Nothing to do with the bible.

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.

The solar system is the system around the sun. There are no other solar systems. Whatever little points of light you see orbiting are of unknown distance and size. For all we know they could be bigger than you think, or the size of tennis balls or whatever! You MUST prove time exists with space the same in all the universe or there ARE no distances known to deep space. (and certainly no times involved in light transiting anywhere out there)

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.

Genesis is actually a book of beginnings recorded for man from God. The sun actually does a lot more than 'keep time'.

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.

Pseudo sciences have overgrown science. The origin sciences are pseudo science! They are no more science than weeds are part of an overgrown house.
Think of the houses on the sides as actual science, and the one in the middle as overgrown with beliefs science so called.

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 oppose creation and exalt their claims above God's. It is what it is.

They also don't inspire isolation between people on the basis of beliefs.

They are offered as truth, and are directly opposed to the bible.

Rather science as it is observation based is something that people of different beliefs can agree on and do.

Origin pseudo sciences are not observation based. They are faith based, imposing faith onto limited observations.

Maybe that is threatening to certain ministerial positions, but those positions can pivot. They can join the force for good.

Light is not darkness and truth cannot be joined to lies. One must prevail.

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.

The first chapters deal with creation of man and life on earth, the stars etc etc. Israel is not in the creation account at all.

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.

Man finds out knowledge of witty inventions and studies creation. When man invents fables that delude hi into thinking there is no God, that is not study! That is manufacturing lies based on delusions and false precepts/models.

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 it mentions the sun and moon are for light.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Since neither the sun or moon are required for light as we see by the fact there already was light here before they existed, they both are not really the source of light. Yes we get indirect light from the moon, and a type of light from the sun. But the sun is going OUT according to the bible, and men will still be here. So the sun and moon are not the ultimate sources of light for earth. The theories of where the sun came from in 'science' are also wrong. So don't preach how you think they are so clever. Some of us have our own religion, thanks.

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.

? God created the heaven and the earth seems to be about the planet to me!

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

?

The earth is what will remain here. It would better be called the 'temporary earth system'!! The solar system falsely implies the sun is the main deal. (currently, of course the planets orbit the sun, so I often do allude to the solar system as a frame of modern reference)

Again what does it matter how the physical world is created as it has diddly squat to do with repentance.

If Jesus did not really create as the bible says, then it is fundamentally in error. How would someone who really did not create it all save you?

 

[dad]

Your inability to understand the concept of space-time does not refute the argument.

Tell us something about space and time then. Ha. Science knows not what either is! As for relativity, you need to show it is relative in far space. Simply seeing some apparent relativistic effects out there does NOT tell us what time is like. (and a whole lot of other things that seem to be above your paygrade to discuss)

 

[dad]

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.

Source?

 

[dad]

(A) Without the modern telescopes, using either or both optical telescopes and radio telescopes as they do at observatories or the space telescopes, then no I cannot measure distance of stars.

Using them means using them here in the area of the solar system. No observations here can show us what time is like out there. Or space.

I cannot simply use a home telescope to make such measurements, because it would require me to do a fair bit of computation to get rough estimates of distance.

But with the modern observatories’ telescopes, much of the measurements (plus computation or maths) are done by computers.

The interpretation of observations is what yields distances. The cosmic ladder is used in the math. The parallax for example, and the standard candles etc. This means distances based on a belief space and time are homogeneous are derived. All you need to do to validate those claims is prove that indeed space and time exist identically to what we know here in all the universe. Until then it is pseudo science.

And (B) before Galileo, there were no telescopes, so all observation and cataloguing of astronomical objects were done by the naked eye. So all stars and planets viewed in those times (before Galileo) were only those that were visible to them, and these were normally stars close to Earth.

The nearest star that is visible to the naked eye, is the Alpha Centauri, at 4.37 light years away; Proxima Centauri is actually closest star to earth at 4.24 light years, but it is too faint to be visible to the naked eye, so you would need either a very good binoculars or decent home telescope to see Proxima Centauri.

Wrong. You do not know even the distance to the closest star!
Man and his probes have not even been one light day away! So we have no knowledge of what time is like out there at all. You simply try to apply fishbowl reality to the unknown.

All those visible stars have already been measured and catalogued by modern observatories, like their distances, redshifts, angular measurements (eg declination, parallax, etc) and masses.

Like to discuss how distances from these things are totally independent of beliefs??

The issue is not that your foundations have been rocked and how incredulous you think other beliefs may be. The issue is the very real premises upon which your claims are founded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell us something about space and time then. Ha. Science knows not what either is! As for relativity, you need to show it is relative in far space. Simply seeing some apparent relativistic effects out there does NOT tell us what time is like. (and a whole lot of other things that seem to be above your paygrade to discuss)

dad, you cannot demand. You have demonstrated far too much ignorance. You need to learn first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

Give me your date for the mythical event and I will give you a source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Desperate at any costs to avoid offering support for what is used as a main ingredient for all 'science' models about origins. OK. Admit it is belief based.

dad, it appears that others will not give you what you crave until you learn the basics either.

 

[tas8831]

This:

"Science IS religion"

translates as:

"I cannot meet scien ce on its own level, so I feel compelled to drag down to religion's...."

 

[Subduction Zone]

This:

"Science IS religion"

translates as:

"I cannot meet scien ce on its own level, so I feel compelled to drag down to religion's...."

Have you checked on the most recent rule from the site that dad comes from? It tells you why he started this thread here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Genesis was talking about the stars and moon and sun. As for planets, as I have said, they may have been re positioned later for all you or I know.

It mentions day first, then the sun and stars and moon are created. If they have been re-positioned that does not implicate science as a religion but biblical descriptions of sun moon and stars as antiquated.

Hey, science thinks space it stretched.

Its observable within our solar system that space and time are affected by acceleration, and the greater the acceleration the greater the effect. They are either stretched or compressed depending. Observations of far away stars also indicate this.

The solar system is the system around the sun.

According to telescopes, yes; but its not according to Genesis. According to Genesis the sun is placed into the sky for signs and seasons and to rule the day.

There are no other solar systems. Whatever little points of light you see orbiting are of unknown distance and size. For all we know they could be bigger than you think, or the size of tennis balls or whatever!

That isn't my problem. If there are no other solar systems then that doesn't affect me. What's really surprising is the enormous size of the sun. Its many thousands of times the volume of Earth.

You MUST prove time exists with space the same in all the universe or there ARE no distances known to deep space. (and certainly no times involved in light transiting anywhere out there)

What has been demonstrated is that it takes years for a human-made satellite to leave the solar system but that it is possible. The Voyager-1 satellite continues to emit signals towards Earth and is expected to reach a star in 40,000 years. I've no idea how long the batteries will last though.

Genesis is actually a book of beginnings recorded for man from God. The sun actually does a lot more than 'keep time'.

Technically its part of a book of laws for the Jews, and the rest of humanity has found other uses for it. It reminds me of the story in 1Samuel in which the ark is stolen by the Philistines who get a plague as a result. Then gets returned, but somebody dies when they touch it. After that people are much more careful not to misuse it and take its presence more seriously. The apostle Paul says that Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. He doesn't say Scientists are. They're entrusted with other things, such as observations, long and tedious measurements and brain wracking formulations and pattern finding.

Pseudo sciences have overgrown science. The origin sciences are pseudo science! They are no more science than weeds are part of an overgrown house.
Think of the houses on the sides as actual science, and the one in the middle as overgrown with beliefs science so called.

I would only seriously accept such an opinion from someone who was a deft hand with calculations and could teach physical sciences. Again, Science is a discipline not a religion. You train hard for it, and then you're held to high standards. Its not easy, so I'm not going to dismiss all of the very respectable efforts of boffins just because somebody has a fondness for literal interpretation.

They oppose creation and exalt their claims above God's. It is what it is.

Of course if there is evidence for creation then they will be the first to notice and have in fact done a lot of work to identify how the world is put together.

Origin pseudo sciences are not observation based. They are faith based, imposing faith onto limited observations.

A pseudo science is be definition not a science.

The first chapters deal with creation of man and life on earth, the stars etc etc. Israel is not in the creation account at all.

That is an interpretation of a book that doesn't technically belong to the gentiles. If is anything like the Ark then there might be a down side to using it as a science text.

 

[gnostic]

The interpretation of observations is what yields distances. The cosmic ladder is used in the math. The parallax for example, and the standard candles etc.

dad, astronomers, and I am talking about professional astronomers these days, used advanced technology and computers to do all their measurements, all their calculations, so it minimized much of human errors.

And the measurements far more precise than ever before, reducing the margin of errors to even smaller figures or percentages, than when they did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.

When they first used radio telescope, in 1964, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was accidentally discovered by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. At first they didn’t what the sources of this background radiation was come from, and began the process of elimination, first every possible terrestrial electromagnetic sources or noises or interference. But eventually they began deducting that it might be coming from deep space.

Their discovery led to more powerful radio telescopes to detect and measure the universe’s CMBR. Eventually the first microwave anisotropic capable observatory satellite was launched in 1989. The Cosmic Background Explorer (or COBE) was launched by NASA.

It gave better imagery and measurements than any terrestrial radio observatories, but it wasn’t as accurate as two other more powerful satellites -

1. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), 2001, from NASA.
2. and the Planck spacecraft, 2009, from ESA (European Space Agency)

They detect very extreme redshifted residual radiation left when the universe was young.

The CMBR was first postulated and predicted back in 1948 by the theoretical astrophysicists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and were also working with another astrophysicist George Gamow on Primordial Nucleosynthesis, now called the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).

The CMBR discovery was the best evidence of the Big Bang theory of the young universe, before the formation of the earliest generation of stars. The CMBR occurred in the Big Bang timeline in the Recombination Epoch, which started 377,000 years after the Big Bang (the beginning of expansion of the universe).

Recombination Epoch was a time when the earliest time when electrons bonded with ionized hydrogen and ionized helium for the first time. This bonding decoupled light, which over the billion of years caused the light redshifted to EM spectrum of microwave.

The CMBR is the oldest detectable light, older than the first quasars, older than the oldest detectable stars.

My point about CMBR, is that from its discovery to present day, the devices used to detect and measure background radiation have becoming increasing accurate and precise. The evidences are not left to human chances of making errors.

If humans were left to do the measurements and calculations without computers, I might have agreed with you. But you are so backward and ignorant, because you have ignored that both optical and radio telescopes used computers to provide more accurate detection, measurements and calculations.

You are living in the 21st century, dad, for goodness sake. How about you actually reading scientific sources than using your bizarre and twisted logic.

 

[dad]

Give me your date for the mythical event and I will give you a source.

You brought it up, what you invent dates as needed?

 

[dad]

dad, it appears that others will not give you what you crave until you learn the basics either.

If anyone could support the belief they would. So as it stands your origin basis remains religion.

 

[dad]

It mentions day first, then the sun and stars and moon are created.

Not sure what you are foggy about. There is a certain day the sun and stars were made.

If they have been re-positioned that does not implicate science as a religion but biblical descriptions of sun moon and stars as antiquated.

Since I have never seen any bible verse stating a position of planets your point is moot.

Its observable within our solar system that space and time are affected by acceleration, and the greater the acceleration the greater the effect. They are either stretched or compressed depending. Observations of far away stars also indicate this.

Here we do see the effect. In far space any effect that takes time means that it is an unknown amount of time! Here, where we see it we see it IN our time. We know how much time in involved here.

According to telescopes, yes; but its not according to Genesis. According to Genesis the sun is placed into the sky for signs and seasons and to rule the day.

Not ONLY for that. His creation has multi purposes. Try looking at the rest of the bible for some.

That isn't my problem. If there are no other solar systems then that doesn't affect me.

Rather than defend your claim then you say you don't really care. OK.

What's really surprising is the enormous size of the sun. Its many thousands of times the volume of Earth.

Just the right size and distance for it's job.

What has been demonstrated is that it takes years for a human-made satellite to leave the solar system but that it is possible. The Voyager-1 satellite continues to emit signals towards Earth and is expected to reach a star in 40,000 years. I've no idea how long the batteries will last though.

It depends on how we view the solar system. If it encompasses all the bodies that are in the sun'r gravity, or just the planetary area out to Pluto.

"We took the radius of the solar system to be 39.5 AU, which means it has a diameter of 79 AU. This means you could put the Solar System about 800 times in one Light Year.

If you include all the comets like we did in the second part, then the Solar System has a diameter of about 100,000 AU

Which means it is significantly greater than One Light Year."

https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-Solar-System-in-terms-of-light-years

Voyager is NOT EVEN A LIGHT DAY AWAY!

The apostle Paul says that Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. He doesn't say Scientists are.

Got that right, more like oracles of Satan!

I would only seriously accept such an opinion from someone who was a deft hand with calculations and could teach physical sciences. Again, Science is a discipline not a religion. You train hard for it, and then you're held to high standards. Its not easy, so I'm not going to dismiss all of the very respectable efforts of boffins just because somebody has a fondness for literal interpretation.

The key is applying calculations properly. Not just running big numbers.

Of course if there is evidence for creation then they will be the first to notice and have in fact done a lot of work to identify how the world is put together.

They cannot see evidence in any light but the colored religious biased light of their religion.

A pseudo science is be definition not a science.

Bingo! The origins 'sciences' are not science. They are fables and belief based.

 

[dad]

dad, astronomers, and I am talking about professional astronomers these days, used advanced technology and computers to do all their measurements, all their calculations, so it minimized much of human errors.

Men still interpret and decide what things mean.

And the measurements far more precise than ever before, reducing the margin of errors to even smaller figures or percentages, than when they did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago.

They cannot measure time in far space, so they have no clue now any more than then. They run a religious numbers racket.

When they first used radio telescope, in 1964, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was accidentally discovered by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. At first they didn’t what the sources of this background radiation was come from, and began the process of elimination, first every possible terrestrial electromagnetic sources or noises or interference. But eventually they began deducting that it might be coming from deep space.

Their discovery led to more powerful radio telescopes to detect and measure the universe’s CMBR. Eventually the first microwave anisotropic capable observatory satellite was launched in 1989. The Cosmic Background Explorer (or COBE) was launched by NASA.

It gave better imagery and measurements than any terrestrial radio observatories, but it wasn’t as accurate as two other more powerful satellites -

1. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), 2001, from NASA.
2. and the Planck spacecraft, 2009, from ESA (European Space Agency)

They detect very extreme redshifted residual radiation left when the universe was young.

The CMBR was first postulated and predicted back in 1948 by the theoretical astrophysicists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and were also working with another astrophysicist George Gamow on Primordial Nucleosynthesis, now called the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).

The CMBR discovery was the best evidence of the Big Bang theory of the young universe, before the formation of the earliest generation of stars. The CMBR occurred in the Big Bang timeline in the Recombination Epoch, which started 377,000 years after the Big Bang (the beginning of expansion of the universe).

The CREATION background remnant was not considered. They played a what if game with what woulda should coulda happened IF a big bang happened. They never considered a creation. You have no proof of any early aspect of a big bang. No evidence of what happened 377 thousand imaginary years after an imaginary BB.

You just seek to take credit for the creation remnant background. As for redshift, in deep space we cannot assume the light is affected for the same reasons as on earth. Maybe time affects light. ..or space..etc etc. You are seeking to export fishbowl causes and rules and realities into they unknown.

Recombination Epoch was a time when the earliest time when electrons bonded with ionized hydrogen and ionized helium for the first time.

Baloney.

This bonding decoupled light, which over the billion of years caused the light redshifted to EM spectrum of microwave.

Poppycock.

The CMBR is the oldest detectable light, older than the first quasars, older than the oldest detectable stars.

There is a background glow. You explanation is a crock of beliefs stacked on beliefs, piled on assumptions and sprayed with godless doctrine.

My point about CMBR, is that from its discovery to present day, the devices used to detect and measure background radiation have becoming increasing accurate and precise. The evidences are not left to human chances of making errors.

You see the creation glow better but still have no clue what it is.

You are living in the 21st century, dad, for goodness sake. How about you actually reading scientific sources than using your bizarre and twisted logic.

Claims from many religions are out there and well known, including yours. Sorry you took it so seriously, it is a steaming fresh fable.

 

[gnostic]

Claims from many religions are out there and well known, including yours. Sorry you took it so seriously, it is a steaming fresh fable.

Fables have to with stories of animals, dad. Gee, dad, you are being so ignorant.

And you are being bias too.

Your Bible has stories of talking serpent and talking donkey. Those are fables, dad. Genesis and Numbers are works of ancient myths, where they thought animals of all sort could talk in the human language. That’s not reality, not natural.

The only other times, I find talking animals in ancient literature, are only from myths, particularly fables.

But fables aren’t just being able to talk, but also in their actions in the stories.

Then you have also ravens feeding Elijah during a drought. And they brought him bread. Not just meat, but bread also. Where in the bloody hell would ravens get bread?

Does ravens know how to make flour, make bread dough and bake the bread under a fire?

The ravens don’t talk, but them bringing breads to Elijah in the middle of drought, is nothing more than fable.

If you believe in 1 Kings, then you are actually believing in fables.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You brought it up, what you invent dates as needed?

Yes, but different Christians have different dates for their myths. The refutation varies. Of course you know this and are once again merely running away.