Science IS religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good.
Now my model of reality, as simple as I can state it, is this:
Reality in practice comes in 4 parts:
Same, similar and/or different and the model of how they relate.
Objective, intersubjective and/or subjective and the model of how they relate.
Natural, cultural and/or individual and the model of how they relate.
Physical, social(biological) and/or mental(psychological) and the model of how they relate.
Science, philosophy and/or religion and the model of how they relate.

And now comes the joke: We can have similar, yet different models of reality and both get away with it.
You focus on the same, objective, natural, physical, science part of it.
I try to account for all 3 in my model.

So with that in mind, try answering these questions:
How many variants of wrong are in play for the claim that religion is wrong?
How many variants of wrong are in play for the claim that science is wrong?

For philosophy we just agree that it is a waste of time, though that is what we are doing here.

"wrong" are those things that do not correspond to commonly observable reality.
There are no "variants". At best, there might be gradations.

As such, one can only assess the "wrongness" of something insofar as it is contrastable to commonly observable reality. ie: things that aren't verifiable / testable / falsifiable, can't be evaluated properly in terms of accuracy.

Your bizar obfuscation and semantic drivel concerning the meaning of words notwithstanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But that is subjective, that you define it so, so the definition of reality is not a part of reality.
As long as you do that as a product of culture, then I use another culture and it can go on.
Look here: Definition of OBJECTIVE
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Your definition is not objective, because you subjectively define it so. As long as I can't get you to understand that we are doing philosophy and not science with your definition, we can't move on to tackle both science, philosophy and religion as human behaviors in regards to other parts of realty.
As long as the really real is only the objective part, for which the word "real" is subjective, we are stuck.
As long as you insist on a part and not a relationship this goes one.
Subjective and objective are interconnected and in relationship with each other. They are not different parts.

You can use the word "toilet" to mean "restaurant" if you want also, but it will only result in people looking at you funny if you then tell them "let's meet up in the toilet".

Also, using the word "toilet" for what is commonly known as "restaurant", won't change what a restaurant is: a place that prepares food and serves it to customers to consume in exchange for money.

The objective reality of objects is what it is, no matter what term you like to use to refer to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't like how you seem to be trolling.

You don't seem to understand that we are talking past each other. I get it now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"wrong" are those things that do not correspond to commonly observable reality.
...

Wrong(Google):
1. not correct or true; incorrect
2. unjust, dishonest, or immoral

Next time try to use a dictionary.

So there are at least 2 versions of wrong.
But yes, graduations work better in another sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I just don't allow moving the goalposts or otherwise confusing what the actual point under discussion is.

The idea being called "objectively good" here, is NOT the idea of wanting to stay alive, but rather the idea of jumping from a building in a context where wanting to stay alive is the goal.

...

Please us a dictionary for "objectively" and "good".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No such thing. Origins sciences are belief based and therefore not real science. They are falsely included and called science.
Yes the thread is about your beliefs.
You have offered faith banged, off topic off base desperate attempts to defend your beliefs that you like to falsely call science.
So you admit one would have to be a moron to accept what you say as fact rather than belief?

I agree that you have no evidence. The question is why have you pretended you did?
Are you absolutely certain of that? If so I guess that makes you...a....

To pseudo science folks that just means the only certainty is to reject God and creation at all costs and without reason.

Since no evidence of a same nature in the past was offered, and no evidence that time in the far universe is the same as earth time, your pseudo science religion has no certainty.


Just because there are causes doe not mean your religion knows them. In fact I suggest origin sciences specialize in explanations that avoid the actual cause at any cost. That is fanaticism.
In other words when false prophesy and lies get busted they constantly scramble for new stories.



True, so why mention it?

You do not seem capable enough to admit that science uses a belief that nature was the same. To be clear, the issue in deep space is time, and whether it is now the same as time on earth or not. That is a separate issue to what the forces of nature were like on earth at the dawn of creation. Origin sciences try to use the billions of years of time they derive from a belief time is the same in all the universe, to justify or back up old age claims for earth! Circular. 'See, we know earth is old, because we see old stuff out in the universe and it seems the same here to us'!


There are two claims here. My claim is belief based, and also fits all scientific evidences and history and Scripture!

Your claim is belief based, and you are trying to sell it as 'science'! You bear the burden of proof. Otherwise your claims will remain relegated to beliefs.

Lurkers: understand why the poster must avoid trying to prove the very basis used in all models of the past by origin sciences, he cannot do so. I is a desperate flailing about we see here, trying to avoid truth at all costs.
Actually I just showed how so called sciences do try to validate old age claims about earth with the fantasies and beliefs they grab from the heavens! By your standards they do not even rank beings morons! I tend to agree. So does God actually and calls them 'fools'. 'The fool has said in his heart, there is n God'.
I do think there must be basis. You have none but belief.

I actually know the real basis for psuedo science claims, and you cannot discuss it defend it, or even seem to comprehend it. So you pretend no one else grasps science. Knavish. I prefer religions with some class.

You

No such thing. Origins sciences are belief based and therefore not real science. They are falsely included and called science.
Yes the thread is about your beliefs.
You have offered faith banged, off topic off base desperate attempts to defend your beliefs that you like to falsely call science.
So you admit one would have to be a moron to accept what you say as fact rather than belief?

I agree that you have no evidence. The question is why have you pretended you did?
Are you absolutely certain of that? If so I guess that makes you...a....

To pseudo science folks that just means the only certainty is to reject God and creation at all costs and without reason.

Since no evidence of a same nature in the past was offered, and no evidence that time in the far universe is the same as earth time, your pseudo science religion has no certainty.


Just because there are causes doe not mean your religion knows them. In fact I suggest origin sciences specialize in explanations that avoid the actual cause at any cost. That is fanaticism.
In other words when false prophesy and lies get busted they constantly scramble for new stories.



True, so why mention it?

You do not seem capable enough to admit that science uses a belief that nature was the same. To be clear, the issue in deep space is time, and whether it is now the same as time on earth or not. That is a separate issue to what the forces of nature were like on earth at the dawn of creation. Origin sciences try to use the billions of years of time they derive from a belief time is the same in all the universe, to justify or back up old age claims for earth! Circular. 'See, we know earth is old, because we see old stuff out in the universe and it seems the same here to us'!


There are two claims here. My claim is belief based, and also fits all scientific evidences and history and Scripture!

Your claim is belief based, and you are trying to sell it as 'science'! You bear the burden of proof. Otherwise your claims will remain relegated to beliefs.

Lurkers: understand why the poster must avoid trying to prove the very basis used in all models of the past by origin sciences, he cannot do so. I is a desperate flailing about we see here, trying to avoid truth at all costs.
Actually I just showed how so called sciences do try to validate old age claims about earth with the fantasies and beliefs they grab from the heavens! By your standards they do not even rank beings morons! I tend to agree. So does God actually and calls them 'fools'. 'The fool has said in his heart, there is n God'.
I do think there must be basis. You have none but belief.

I actually know the real basis for psuedo science claims, and you cannot discuss it defend it, or even seem to comprehend it. So you pretend no one else grasps science. Knavish. I prefer religions with some class.

If Origin science practices "Methodological Naturalism", then it is based on science, and NOT belief. But if Origin science is based only on the supernatural, then it is a belief and not a science. Of course this thread reads, "Science IS religion". This is an open claim that science and religion are the same. They clearly are not. I see nothing in the title that makes Origin science relevant. Why do you refuse to understand that science is not a belief? It is a method of inquiry, that must follow certain rules to be objective. Its provides a level of certainty, that is supported by objective evidence. Are you saying science is a belief, because I believe in its explanations? And, that I can easily falsify, or validate its Laws, Theories, and hypotheses? Therefore the more science I understand, the less belief I need. Or, do you just claim that EVERYTHING is just a belief, in order to conflate science into a religion. It is you that is clutching at straws.

I see you are still shifting the burden of proof, to hide your ignorance, and your absolute lack of evidence. Will there be a time when you will come back from these tangential assertions, and address our concerns using objective evidence? Atheists do not reject a God. That would imply the existence of a God to reject. Nice try to force-fit a lie about Atheism.

There are two claims here. My claim is belief based, and also fits all scientific evidences and history and Scripture! Your claim is belief based, and you are trying to sell it as 'science'! You bear the burden of proof. Otherwise your claims will remain relegated to belie

What belief-based claim fits all scientific evidence, history, and scripture? Maybe you can also give one example supporting, how the natural forces, or spacetime, was different in the past, than it is now? Somehow I feel you will be force to keep parroting the same nonsense, rather than expose your extremely poor understanding of how science works. Why do you keep focussing on belief, and not WHY science believes something. Belief is irrelevant , unless there is a reason for the belief. Science uses objective, verifiable evidence to support its beliefs. Pseudoscience or religious beliefs use zero evidence to support its beliefs. I simply choose the former to believe in. And, you choose the latter.

Clearly you don't have a clue on how scientists measure distances between the stars, planets, and galaxies in our Universe. We can achieve very precise measurements of distances, up to 600 light years away. Of course, this alone blows away any silly idea of a 10,000 year old earth or Universe. Since you can't/won't accept the inconvenient truth, you must create your own fantasy science and logic. That is, that the laws of Nature and spacetime, were different billions of years ago, than they are today. Maybe you are right, but you must deposit some evidence, other than we just keep defending our own position. Seems a bit one-sided to me. Since you made the claim, I think you should be defending your own position.

Lurkers: understand why the poster must avoid trying to prove the very basis used in all models of the past by origin sciences, he cannot do so. I is a desperate flailing about we see here, trying to avoid truth at all costs.

I could not have stated this description of you better. I might have also added the definition of a "troll", as well for completeness. Finally, what is the scientific basis for a God belief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can use the word "toilet" to mean "restaurant" if you want also, but it will only result in people looking at you funny if you then tell them "let's meet up in the toilet".

Also, using the word "toilet" for what is commonly known as "restaurant", won't change what a restaurant is: a place that prepares food and serves it to customers to consume in exchange for money.

The objective reality of objects is what it is, no matter what term you like to use to refer to it.

So I use this version of reality:
Google: Reality - the state or quality of having existence or substance.
Subjective beliefs have existence.

 

[dad]

You'll have to wait a long time - but whatever. Still no hint of actual evidence or reasoning to back up your claim, I see.

The reasoning is twofold. The spooky death claims of science neither can be supported, nor does the bible prophesy any such thing. In fact the two prophesies are completely opposed to one another.

As for support required, here are a few example claims about the sun. If you can support eve these two points, I think your case would be solid.

" --It takes between 225 million and 250 million years for the Sun to complete its orbit through the Milky Way.

--The Sun is expected to remain stable for the next 5 billion years"

Astronomy for Kids: The Sun

Now if anyone out there really wants to impress us here is a claim that I bet you cannot support

--"The convection currents carry photons outward to the surface faster than the radiative transfer that occurs in the core and radiative zone. With so many interactions occurring between photons and gas molecules in the radiative and convection zones, it takes a photon approximately 100,000 to 200,000 years to reach the surface."

How the Sun Works

The models of the sun are based on evidence and observation.

Funny you should have said that! Now let's see the three points supported!!!!! ha

 

[dad]

No, it really doesn't.



You're the one believing what you like.
I'm the one who "believes" whatever the evidence demonstrates - wether I like it or not.

You demonstrate you have blather and no evidence. Thanks for the demo.

 

[ratiocinator]

The reasoning is twofold. The spooky death claims of science neither can be supported, nor does the bible prophesy any such thing. In fact the two prophesies are completely opposed to one another.

Yes but one is based on scientific theories that are derived from observations and experiments and the other is from an old book of stories with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.

As for support required, here are a few example claims about the sun. If you can support eve these two points, I think your case would be solid.

" --It takes between 225 million and 250 million years for the Sun to complete its orbit through the Milky Way.

...

Do you know how to do an internet search? It took me less than a minute to find this: How is the orbital speed of the sun through the Milky way determined?

What do you think is going on here anyway? Why on earth do you think scientists would publish this sort of thing if there wasn't any supporting evidence? How else do you think they decided? Do you think they're all stupid? Involved is some bizarre conspiracy?

 

[etong]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Wrong!, they are based on actual evidence, The 'god' of the bible has -never- been proven, EVER, but Evolution is a proven fact, you think that the universe began in 4004 BC, huh? how has light reached our planet yet then?How can tress be 10k years old?How can the moon be how far away it is now?

 

[dad]

If Origin science practices "Methodological Naturalism", then it is based on science, and NOT belief.

ONLY as long as nature has been the same. Otherwise the method is out of date.

But if Origin science is based only on the supernatural, then it is a belief and not a science.

A belief does not need to be 'only about the super natural'.

Dictionary.com defines belief here

- something believed; an opinion or conviction:

- confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately
susceptible to rigorous proof:

- confidence; faith; trust:

- a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:

Why do you refuse to understand that science is not a belief? It is a method of inquiry,

Belief based method.

that must follow certain rules to be objective.

The creed it follows for the basis in origin claims is not objective. It is a belief based set of rules based on a belief that the past was the same nature as today.

Its provides a level of certainty, that is supported by objective evidence.

In origin claims it provides belief based fables, doubts about creation, with no reality or application or value or evidence. The method is to dunk and taint and color evidence with beliefs!

Are you saying science is a belief, because I believe in its explanations? And, that I can easily falsify, or validate its Laws, Theories, and hypotheses?

No. I am saying it may loom large in your head, but can't come out and fight in the field of discussion. You can't even falsify your claimed same nature in the past!

I see you are still shifting the burden of proof, to hide your ignorance, and your absolute lack of evidence. Will there be a time when you will come back from these tangential assertions, and address our concerns using objective evidence?

There is no objectivity for claims about the origin of life and the universe. Creation of life and the universe involves more than the physical world science swims around in. If a spirit was in a lab, a scientist would not detect it. In the origins issues what we see is that they try to limit how we must have gotten here to the present natural world they know! Furthermore, they try to exclude all that is outside their little box that cannot be carried into this present natural world, such as historical and Scriptural ancient records, spirits, God, the past, the future, unknown deep space...etc etc.

Atheists do not reject a God. That would imply the existence of a God to reject. Nice try to force-fit a lie about Atheism.

Some consider that atheists simply do not know what god they serve. That does not make it less than real, it just makes them less than aware!

What belief-based claim fits all scientific evidence, history, and scripture?

Mine! There is no aspect of scientific evidence that does not fit. Fossil record? Yes. Continental division? Yes. DNA? Yes. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Maybe you can also give one example supporting, how the natural forces, or spacetime, was different in the past, than it is now?

? I have not heard that the forces of nature were 'spacetime' caused? Explain!?
The only thing here that matters is whether science KNOWS what the forces of nature on earth used to be billions of (their imaginary, faith based, claimed) 'years' ago! No other belief matters here, or needs to offer reasons why it believes whatever it believes! Science must defend it's claims here. In case some have trouble with the concept, maybe I can help

You need to say something like....'science knows that laws of nature were the same 100 million years ago, because....this and that and the other reason '

Clearly you don't have a clue on how scientists measure distances between the stars, planets, and galaxies in our Universe. We can achieve very precise measurements of distances, up to 600 light years away. Of course, this alone blows away any silly idea of a 10,000 year old earth or Universe.

Lurkers, notice he has made a specific claim here? Now, when I ask him to support it, one would hope we get some details and support.

OK, so..HOW do you get a precise distance, say, to the closest star?

That is, that the laws of Nature and spacetime, were different billions of years ago, than they are today.

There you go again conflating spacetime with nature.

I suggest, to be clear, that, right now as we speak, time is not known to be the same in deep space as it is on earth. I doubt our time ever changed here, or at least significantly. (a year used to be 360 days but that is a small amount of difference and a whole other thread)

The issue with nature today on earth that we live in, and whose laws science uses for models of the past, is that I am asking if science can prove this nature also existed the same right here on earth in the days of Noah. (in 'science time' probably many tens of millions of years ago). Yes or no, can you prove nature was the same?

If so, do it. If not, you have a belief only. Period.

 

[dad]

Yes but one is based on scientific theories that are derived from observations and experiments and the other is from an old book of stories with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.



Do you know how to do an internet search? It took me less than a minute to find this: How is the orbital speed of the sun through the Milky way determined?

Your link uses distances derived from parallax measure for one thing. That has no value unless time exists out where the stars are as it does here exactly. Otherwise the time and space we use for the base line in the parallax measure does not represent the space and time all the way to the star! NO distances are known, your calculations are null and void.

That being said, what relation would the orbital speed of the sun have to do with the prophesies of science that the sun will go out one day etc etc?

 

[dad]

Wrong!, they are based on actual evidence, The 'god' of the bible has -never- been proven, EVER, but Evolution is a proven fact, you think that the universe began in 4004 BC, huh? how has light reached our planet yet then?How can tress be 10k years old?How can the moon be how far away it is now?

Easy!

The tree rings ( I assume your word tress was meant to be trees?) cannot tell us ages beyond when our nature existed since trees are recorded to have grown in weeks rather than years in the former times! So you could get a tree full of rings in a few months or years then, so we cannot count each ring as having come to exist in our current nature!

Now about the moon being the distance it now is...how do you think that helps you? Ha.

 

[etong]

Easy!

The tree rings ( I assume your word tress was meant to be trees?) cannot tell us ages beyond when our nature existed since trees are recorded to have grown in weeks rather than years in the former times! So you could get a tree full of rings in a few months or years then, so we cannot count each ring as having come to exist in our current nature!

Evidence?

Now about the moon being the distance it now is...how do you think that helps you? Ha.

Ha, creationist makes no sense!

From RationalWiki

South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today."[60] The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

More recent work on Precambrian sediments gives more precise numbers. From Neoproterozoic (620 million years ago) "tidal rhythmites" in Elatina and Reynella, Australia, the Moon's major axis had a value 0.965 ± 0.005 times its present-day value. That implies an average recession rate of 2.17 ± 0.31 cm/yr, a little more than half the present-day rate of 3.82 ± 0.07 cm/yr. Going back further to banded iron formations in Western Australia in the Paleoproterozoic (2450 Mya), one finds a major-axis ratio of 0.906 ± 0.029, and an average recession rate of 1.24 ± 0.71 cm/yr over most of the Proterozoic.[61] So for whatever reason, the Moon is now outspiraling relatively rapidly, something that makes creationist-style extrapolation of it unjustified.

Ultimately, the recession of the moon is entirely concordant with its radiometrically recorded age of 4.5 billion years.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your link uses distances derived from parallax measure for one thing. That has no value unless time exists out where the stars are as it does here exactly.

Are you actually serious? If you are just going to make up any story to undermine things you don't like, then maybe gravity doesn't exist at all and it's all just tiny, invisible elves pushing things around.

I mean, seriously? "I don't like your conclusions so what if time and space aren't the same out there (despite the fact that every observation is consistent with them being exactly the same)? Then you'd be wrong! So you have nothing at all!"

Is this a wind-up?

That being said, what relation would the orbital speed of the sun have to do with the prophesies of science that the sun will go out one day etc etc?

It was the first thing you asked me to support:-

As for support required, here are a few example claims about the sun. If you can support eve these two points, I think your case would be solid.

" --It takes between 225 million and 250 million years for the Sun to complete its orbit through the Milky Way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You demonstrate you have blather and no evidence. Thanks for the demo.

dad, you are the last to make this sort of claim. You do not even appear to understand what is and what is not evidence.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Do you think that you can understand that?

 

[dad]

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Do you think that you can understand that?

If you get any to support your religion post it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you get any to support your religion post it.

Religion is your sin. And you do not understand the concept of evidence or you are a liar. I prefer to hold that it is The former.

At any rate until you understand what is And what is not evidence you are in no position to demand any.

 

[dad]

Evidence?

Evidence is needed to claim our nature existed always if one uses that basis for models.

Either provide evidence or it remains a belief.

For the belief that plants grew quickly in the old world, there is Scriptural support.

South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today."[60]

Cute.

So you have one place in Africa with deposits from some sort of tide and you claim the moon did this.

There likely also used to be tides from fountains of the deep, where waters came up from below the earth at various parts of the day. Ebb and flow!

Prove that the particular deposit was moon caused and we can look at your claim.

The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

Logic fail.

The two basic things that matter are how far the moon is now and how far it then was. (assuming the tidal deposit was moon caused such as in the ocean)

You make the mistake of trying to use the receding rate of modern nature and times as the rate that always applied! Once again you need to prove the same nature always existed to do that, you can't just sneak it by.

In either case you really have no tenable position.

More recent work on....

You have the exact problems as above here. We wait for evidence that this was a tidal action that must be attributed to moon gravity.

We wait for evidence a same state existed on earth in the past.

Your claims are built on these premises...defend them!

Ultimately, the recession of the moon is entirely concordant with its radiometrically recorded age of 4.5 billion years.

Source? Ha.