Science IS religion

[dad]

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!"

Asking what is KNOWN is not a conclusion. It is questioning YOUR conclusions.

There is no observation that time is the same out there. Try to face it.

Is this a wind-up?



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

Fair enough, looking back I see that does address one of the questions.

So, the way you try to support it involves distances based on assuming space and time exist the same far far far far far far far far far far far far far far beyond where man has ever been or where any probe has ever been.

Are we supposed to simply believe by blind faith here, or do you have some sort of proof?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asking what is KNOWN is not a conclusion. It is questioning YOUR conclusions.

There is no observation that time is the same out there. Try to face it.

Fair enough, looking back I see that does address one of the questions.

So, the way you try to support it involves distances based on assuming space and time exist the same far far far far far far far far far far far far far far beyond where man has ever been or where any probe has ever been.

Are we supposed to simply believe by blind faith here, or do you have some sort of proof?!

dad, blind faith is your sin. Just reminding you once again that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[dad]

dad, blind faith is your sin. Just reminding you once again that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

I'll try to help your spam posting habit with some content for you to address actual points on.

"'natural uranium had a concentration of about 3% .." No proof.
Why is it claimed?
", U-235 only makes up about 0.7 percent of the uranium naturally found on Earth. To run a man-made nuclear reactor, uranium has to be "enriched," such that U-235 makes up three percent."
Specifically, then here is the basis for claiming there was a different amount of U35.
"Because U-235 decays faster than U-238, there was a higher concentration of U-235 in the past. "
It is assumed there was our nature along with the decay we have now, and that this was so for billions of years. (total belief)
They say it ran for 15,000 years...no evidence...just what is needed.
"the Oklo reactor, which comprises several separate sites, ran for 30 minutes and then shut off for 2.5 hours, before starting over.
..
"...estimated that the Oklo reactor ran for 150,000 years.."
So now they see something that in our nature results only from a certain process...xenon.
"...xenon could only be trapped in the deposits if the reactor shut off on a regular basis - hence the geyser analogy."
Now it gets obviously ridiculous....
" after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

--quotes from--
https://www.livescience.com/75-natur...nt-geyser.html

So have you any proof the sites all got a dunk miles under then at the right time, resurfaced!?

Give the spam a rest and try to actually address some points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll try to help your spam posting habit with some content for you to address actual points on.

"'natural uranium had a concentration of about 3% .." No proof.
Why is it claimed?
", U-235 only makes up about 0.7 percent of the uranium naturally found on Earth. To run a man-made nuclear reactor, uranium has to be "enriched," such that U-235 makes up three percent."
Specifically, then here is the basis for claiming there was a different amount of U35.
"Because U-235 decays faster than U-238, there was a higher concentration of U-235 in the past. "
It is assumed there was our nature along with the decay we have now, and that this was so for billions of years. (total belief)
They say it ran for 15,000 years...no evidence...just what is needed.
"the Oklo reactor, which comprises several separate sites, ran for 30 minutes and then shut off for 2.5 hours, before starting over.
..
"...estimated that the Oklo reactor ran for 150,000 years.."
So now they see something that in our nature results only from a certain process...xenon.
"...xenon could only be trapped in the deposits if the reactor shut off on a regular basis - hence the geyser analogy."
Now it gets obviously ridiculous....
" after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

--quotes from--
https://www.livescience.com/75-natur...nt-geyser.html

So have you any proof the sites all got a dunk miles under then at the right time, resurfaced!?

Give the spam a rest and try to actually address some points.

I have never spammed. Once again dad, that is your sin.

Do you have specific questions about that article that you did not understand? I will strive to help you if you can ask proper questions.

 

[dad]

I have never spammed. Once again dad, that is your sin.

Do you have specific questions about that article that you did not understand? I will strive to help you if you can ask proper questions.

Try the questions you were directly asked about it. Any proof or support for the magic dunk that is part of that particular origin fable? Ha. Show us evidence that particular area and sites were dunked miles under. We wait.
(hint: do not offer generalities about how some sites do get submerged..specifically let's see evidence for the site here that is claimed to have been submerged in a certain way and time)

Lurkers, the bottom line will be that they need it to have been so in this specific area. Same with other parts of the fable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try the questions you were directly asked about it. Any proof or support for the magic dunk that is part of that particular origin fable? Ha. Show us evidence that particular area and sites were dunked miles under. We wait.
(hint: do not offer generalities about how some sites do get submerged..specifically let's see evidence for the site here that is claimed to have been submerged in a certain way and time)

Lurkers, the bottom line will be that they need it to have been so in this specific area. Same with other parts of the fable.

You need to ask questions politely and properly if you want an answer.

Meanwhile, why do you run and hide from the basics of science? Since you do not understand the concept of evidence you cannot recognize it when it is given to you.

And the lurkers know that all you can do is to run and hide. You have done that in almost every page of this thread.

 

[dad]

You need to

Meanwhile,.

No answer to exact questions..more pretentious spam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No answer to exact questions..more pretentious spam.

The fault was yours. You could not ask questions properly. If I asked you why a certain creationist was a certified idiot, such as Ray Comfort or the convicted liar Kent Hovind, you might resent the question.

Can you ask a question properly? You cannot lie in your questions. But we know that you are deadly afraid of learning and will use almost any strategy or excuse not to do so.

Try again. I told you from the start that you had to ask proper questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Maybe if you didn't insist on redefining words all the time and consistently argue everything for the sake of arguing, that wouldn't happen.

Just a thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Yes, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts.

The context here is in terms of statements about reality, so the context is accuracy, not moral evaluation.
So only definition 1 applies.
Which is basically what I said: wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

A good idea in this context is an idea that is helpfull the accomplish to goal in mind.
A bad idea in this context is an idea that is detrimental to accomplish the goal in mind.
Objective in this context means: independend of human opinion.

So yes, if staying alive is the goal, then jumping from a skyscraper without technology to guard against the effect of gravity, is objectively not a good idea.




Amazing how much you feel the need to dance around just so you don't have to acknowledge this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Subjective beliefs objectively exist.
The beliefs themselves are subjective.
Their existance isn't.



You really DO argue just for the sake of arguing, don't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You demonstrate being a closed minded fundamentalist so deeply engulfed in makebelief that I've known for years now that you are a lost cause. You are so far gone in your Last Thursdayism, I really have zero hope that you'll ever come to realise your irrationality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

Do you even know what tree rings are?
I doubt it. If you did, you'ld realise how mega nonsensical what you just said really is...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I see that this thread has long since gotten off the topic.

Science isn't a religion because:

1. Science is evidence based, not belief based.
2. Science is a self-correcting system where what is held to be factual (or true) is always open to refinement, correction or even omission with compelling evidence, where religion holds what is factual (or true) to be indisputable, even when there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence discrediting the idea in question.
3. Science makes no statements about spirit, soul, philosophy, morality, spirituality or other concerns of religion.
4. Science has no holidays, traditions, clergy, temples, commandments, holy writings or the multitude of other tools that are affiliated with religions.
5. Science does not have a list of commandments or tenants.as almost every other religion out there does.

The religious wish to place science on par with religion under the false impression that if they do, science and religion have equal standing.

Well, that's not the way it works.

 

[ratiocinator]

Asking what is KNOWN is not a conclusion.

Do you have any idea at all about what science does?

It is questioning YOUR conclusions.

They aren't my conclusions - they have been built up in the same way as any scientific theory: by a process of observation or experiments, hypothesis building, more observation or experiments until we have a model that matches what we observe and is able to predict the outcome of new observations or experiments.

There is no observation that time is the same out there. Try to face it.

What is observed is entirely consistent with it being exactly the same. Of course - your god could be a liar and it might all be an illusion designed to fool us poor mortals - but otherwise all the evidence is that the same physics is working out there as in the solar system.

Are we supposed to simply believe by blind faith here, or do you have some sort of proof?!

What we have is copious amounts of evidence. Blind faith seems to be your problem...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts.

The context here is in terms of statements about reality, so the context is accuracy, not moral evaluation.
So only definition 1 applies.
Which is basically what I said: wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality.

Subjective beliefs objectively exist.
The beliefs themselves are subjective.
Their existance isn't.



You really DO argue just for the sake of arguing, don't you?

Here is how I treat you: You are an atheist, so you understand the limit of religion. You claim science, evidence and that you are skeptical. So I treat as you can do that.

And here is your problem:
"Wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality." is a statement itself not a part of the commonly observable reality. You can't observe its contents as the statements works. It is not an observation itself. It is a rule and rules only exist subjectively in the brains of those, who believe in them.
Wrong is not an objective property of a thing in the commonly observable reality. It is a subjective interpretation in your brain.
So in effect you use a rule for which you have no evidence. That is the limit of science. You claim you understand that, but you seem unaware and un-reflected about your own thinking. I.e. you are not skeptical about your own thinking, yet you demand it of others.
So let me break it down for you.
A thing, that doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality, can't have an observable property of being wrong, because the thing is not observable, since it doesn't correspond to the the commonly observable reality and thus wrong is not a part of the commonly observable reality.

Don't tell a skeptic, that you are skeptical. It doesn't end well, unless you are that, skeptical of your own thinking.

How can something which is subjective, exist objectively? Would you mind explain that? BTW please explain exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see that this thread has long since gotten off the topic.

Science isn't a religion because:

1. Science is evidence based, not belief based.
2. Science is a self-correcting system where what is held to be factual (or true) is always open to refinement, correction or even omission with compelling evidence, where religion holds what is factual (or true) to be indisputable, even when there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence discrediting the idea in question.
3. Science makes no statements about spirit, soul, philosophy, morality, spirituality or other concerns of religion.
4. Science has no holidays, traditions, clergy, temples, commandments, holy writings or the multitude of other tools that are affiliated with religions.
5. Science does not have a list of commandments or tenants.as almost every other religion out there does.

The religious wish to place science on par with religion under the false impression that if they do, science and religion have equal standing.

Well, that's not the way it works.

Okay, as long as you understand that you then can't use science to tell people that religion is wrong or that they have wrong beliefs, You can only do that as long as you understand that wrong is a first person subjective rule and not a scientific law/theory. When you evaluate other humans behavior, you are not doing science. Religion is as a human behavior a fact. It can be observed in the world and thus it is a fact of how the world works.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Okay, as long as you understand that you then can't use science to tell people that religion is wrong or that they have wrong beliefs, You can only do that as long as you understand that wrong is a first person subjective rule and not a scientific law/theory. When you evaluate other humans behavior, you are not doing science. Religion is as a human behavior a fact. It can be observed in the world and thus it is a fact of how the world works.

Interesting.

When religion contradicts evidence, it seems quite useful and an appropriate time to express that this belief is wrong. For examples: Noah's Flood, Helios' Chariot, Seven Day Creation, etc. contradict what we "know" about the world and how it works. When religion steps on science and makes scientific claims on how the world works, and those claims are demonstrably false, then it is certainly timely to tell people that "religion is wrong and you have wrong beliefs".

When "wrong" is no longer a matter of opinion (i.e. abortion, extramarital sex) but a statement on observable reality (the world was created in seven days, the whole earth was flooded) then being "wrong" is no longer a first person subjective experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting.

When religion contradicts evidence, it seems quite useful and an appropriate time to express that this belief is wrong. For examples: Noah's Flood, Helios' Chariot, Seven Day Creation, etc. contradict what we "know" about the world and how it works. When religion steps on science and makes scientific claims on how the world works, and those claims are demonstrably false, then it is certainly timely to tell people that "religion is wrong and you have wrong beliefs".

When "wrong" is no longer a matter of opinion (i.e. abortion, extramarital sex) but a statement on observable reality (the world was created in seven days, the whole earth was flooded) then being "wrong" is no longer a first person subjective experience.

Okay, it comes down to how you understand facts.
Is it a fact, that there are people, who believe as you describe? If, yes, how can that be wrong, if it is a fact.
Is it a fact, that their beliefs inform further behavior on their part? If, yes, then the beliefs work in fact and thus they can't be wrong.

These beliefs only become wrong in your brain because of your rule for wrong. Now examine the word "wrong". It is a concept and not a percept. I.e is not observable. It is not a property of a thing. It is a rule in your head.

I use other rules for wrong and fact and these rules can only be wrong to you, because of your rules of wrong and facts.
BTW A fact is a rule just like wrong.
The technical name for this is cognitive relativism. And you can see it describe here by a scientist.

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

If you change the rules for wrong and facts, wrong and facts change. Of course there is the physical parts of reality, which do not change, but how you evaluate other humans behavior change if you change the rule of facts and wrong.
To the point: To me it is a fact that humans believe and that informs their further behavior, thus it can't be wrong. Wrong is in your head as a rule.