Science IS religion

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You are clearly demonstrating for us why science is not a religion. Religion depends on:

• Authority. Someone said it, so therefore, its true. There are no such "prophets" in science. Darwinian evolution has continued to be refined to the point that it is hardly "basically unchanged for 150 years" Much of Darwin's conclusions are *gasp* wrong!! Much of Newtonian physics gave way to Einstein's theories; and Einstein will eventually be refined.
• Absolute Truth. Science does not deal in this, neither is it supposed to. Science deals in finding predictive models of reality. A given theory (a word you probably do not understand as it is used in scientific circles) must have both explanatory and predictive power. If the predictions or explanations are later shown to be wrong, science adapts its conclusions to fit the model of reality.
• Conclusions without Evidence. You can bury your head in the sand all you want but evidence does not support the conclusion of many things that you hold to be true; yet you believe them, in spite of the lack of evidence. What is presented as, most likely, factually accurate by science is supported by evidence rather than stories or myths. Science once asserted that the universe was infinite. Science changed this conclusion in light of new evidence. Science once asserted that the universe was static. This conclusion was found to be wrong. Science adapted. This contrasts sharply with religion, who, as in the examples given above, still hold to 7 day creation and worldwide floods which are held to be true with no supporting evidence.
  • This also reverts to the "Authority" assertion. Einstein believed that the universe was static and infinite; but the scientific consensus does not hold him (or any other) to be a prophet, so therefore his conclusions are not held in reverence.
• Faith. The loose definition of faith, in the religious sense, is belief without evidence. There is no compelling evidence that we have been visited by extraterrestrials, thus the scientific consensus is that we have not been visited by little green men. Religious faith holds to certain things being true, based solely on belief and not on evidence.

You ave been very helpful in demonstrating why science is not religion and I certainly appreciate your efforts.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Thanks for the update, perhaps we may get some early grade school lurkers who may find that useful.

That there is "one ring per year" is not entirely accurate, my friend. If it were that simple, then one would not require years of schooling to date trees.

Thank you for the admission. Was that so hard?
Therefore, anything built upon that premise is built upon the unknown and is not knowledge or science.

You do not understand "knowledge" or "science". "Knowledge" is built upon that which we can demonstrate to be true and that which provides predictive models of reality. While it is nearly impossible to know for "absolute certain truth" (a religious concept), that nature always functioned as it functions now, there is no evidence to assert this to be true. The rational and logical conclusion is therefore that nature has pretty much always functioned as it functions now; without new and compelling evidence to assert otherwise. To assert that you DO know that nature functioned differently during Creation or Noah's flood is to assert knowledge that you can not POSSIBLY have; as you can not demonstrate it to be true nor describe the mechanisms or explanatory power of it being different. Part of demonstrating it to be true would require that you present the mechanisms by which that were the case (nature functioning different) rather than a simple bald assertion that "its true because I believe it".

 

[Bear Wild]

That there is "one ring per year" is not entirely accurate, my friend. If it were that simple, then one would not require years of schooling to date trees.



You do not understand "knowledge" or "science". "Knowledge" is built upon that which we can demonstrate to be true and that which provides predictive models of reality. While it is nearly impossible to know for "absolute certain truth" (a religious concept), that nature always functioned as it functions now, there is no evidence to assert this to be true. The rational and logical conclusion is therefore that nature has pretty much always functioned as it functions now; without new and compelling evidence to assert otherwise. To assert that you DO know that nature functioned differently during Creation or Noah's flood is to assert knowledge that you can not POSSIBLY have; as you can not demonstrate it to be true nor describe the mechanisms or explanatory power of it being different. Part of demonstrating it to be true would require that you present the mechanisms by which that were the case (nature functioning different) rather than a simple bald assertion that "its true because I believe it".

Good luck with this one. His motive is only to preach and ignore evidence. Doesn't matter how good the evidence is he will reject it because of his beliefs and he is here only to harass rather than exchange ideas. His lack of understanding of tree rings of all things is astounding.

 

[Bear Wild]

Tell us then, where do you think you saw some error?

The issue is that trees now grow slowly in this nature, compared to how the records says they used to grow in the old world. Science has believed that the way trees now grow represents the time rings also formed in the former times.

Not sure what the issue in your head is that you could not actually post. Ha.

Looked up tree ring growth in the bible but could not find where it was explained. Maybe you can help New or old testament? Certainty not based on science.

 

[dad]

I think you should at least go through the trouble of looking up how tree rings form and what they actually represent.

Hint: it's not mere growth or pace of growth.

Hint 2 : completion of seasonal cycles. aka, a year.

Not sure which part of the word irrelevant you can't come to grips with? The issue has zero to do with how trees grow in this nature. You are the one assuming that was also the case in the distant past. Proof??

 

[dad]

Rings are due to different growth rates due to the seasons, that's why there is one per year.

That has...what ...to do with the former world? Remember you fist must prove a same nature existed then if you want to make claims!

Yes, if nature was totally different so apparent season rings formed faster, then of course we "can't know".

Bingo.
.

 

[dad]

No - what would make your god a liar is if the future and the past (and, according to you, out in space) were different in exactly the "right" way as to tell a false story to people who try to investigate it using evidence and reasoning. Which is what you are, in effect, saying.

Wrong. HE never said they were the same! That would be origin sciences. He says that angels exist in space out there. He says that the stars were made for man to mark time. He says that the future will be quite different and the universe you know will vanish away. He says many things about how life on earth used to be and they were different. He is not the deceiver. The god of so called science is.

Science isn't like your blind faith in an old book.

God gave the bible, guess who have pseudo sciences?

.

Nobody decided on the answer and then went to look for how to fit the evidence to it. What science has concluded is what the evidence has led it to.

Wrong! The scientific method does exactly that. They methodically assume that laws were the same, and that all space and time are the same etc. They THEN view evidences from that point they decided on! Religion!

 

[dad]

That there is "one ring per year" is not entirely accurate, my friend. If it were that simple, then one would not require years of schooling to date trees.

I know. But the yearly cycle is how rings are counted. The poster I responded to said this

"Rings are due to different growth rates due to the seasons, that's why there is one per year."

The dark and light patterns usually indicate seasonal growth I think. They also extend the dates by finding nearby dead trees with similar patterns in the rings and adding those rings also. The only issue that matters when we go many thousands of years back is what nature the tree was growing in. Not how many rings!

You do not understand "knowledge" or "science". "Knowledge" is built upon that which we can demonstrate to be true and that which provides predictive models of reality.

I suggest it is not I that have trouble grasping knowledge here.

While it is nearly impossible to know for "absolute certain truth" (a religious concept), that nature always functioned as it functions now, there is no evidence to assert this to be true.

False. What you means is that

'there is no evidence people already believing nature was the same can discern'

I consider actual ancient records of life evidence. I consider the fact science doesn't know either way evidence. So what we have is science believing for no defensible reason that nature was the same. Since it starts out assuming the present is the key to the past (and future!) they not only do not know, but can never find out using their philosophy!

The rational and logical conclusion is therefore that nature has pretty much always functioned as it functions now; without new and compelling evidence to assert otherwise.

Untrue. The ONLY conclusion that is reasonable is to admit science does not know either way, but assumes. It is also not reasonable to toss out Scripture/history records of ancient times based on what science cannot support and does not know!

To assert that you DO know that nature functioned differently during Creation or Noah's flood is to assert knowledge that you can not POSSIBLY have;

I am just reading the record of that time! Now if you claim nature was unlike the way we read, but identical to today's nature, YOU must bear the burden of proof.

as you can not demonstrate it to be true nor describe the mechanisms or explanatory power of it being different.

Science cannot demonstrate it either way! All you can do is admit not knowing either way. Believe what you like. ...Religion!

Part of demonstrating it to be true would require that you present the mechanisms by which that were the case (nature functioning different)

I do not have to demonstrate the unknown! I do have to point out that those who claim to know by science are talking through their hat.

 

[dad]

Looked up tree ring growth in the bible but could not find where it was explained. Maybe you can help New or old testament? Certainty not based on science.

We could start with God PLANTING a garden, and in the same week, man ate fruit from the trees!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Wrong! The scientific method does exactly that. They methodically assume that laws were the same, and that all space and time are the same etc. They THEN view evidences from that point they decided on! Religion!

Then why did science change its mind about an expanding universe?
Why did science change its mind about Newtonian physics?
Why did science change its mind about a static universe?
Why did science change its mind about many of Darwin's conclusions?
Why did science change its mind several times over about the distance of the sun from the earth?
Why did science change its mind as bleeding as treatment for illness?
Why did science change its mind about aether?

To find the folly of your words, all you have to do is read a 6th grade level textbook. Yet you falsely accuse science of doing exactly what religion does (which it does not do) then proudly announce based on this false assertion, that science is a religion.

Wow, man.
Like, whow.

 

[Bear Wild]

We could start with God PLANTING a garden, and in the same week, man ate fruit from the trees!

I am sorry, I missed how this is evidence about tree rings. Oh that's right it has nothing to do with tree rings.
Ok I can't resist how many species of trees and variations of the species did god actually plant? Is that in the bible? I could not find it.

 

[dad]

Then why did science change its mind about an expanding universe?
Why did science change its mind about Newtonian physics?
Why did science change its mind about a static universe?

All the above involve the same basic premises on stellar evolution and distances! They never changed the basis, only the busted wrong conclusions based ON those beliefs!

Why did science change its mind about many of Darwin's conclusions?
Why did science change its mind several times over about the distance of the sun from the earth?
Why did science change its mind as bleeding as treatment for illness?
Why did science change its mind about aether?

Of those things listed above, none of it relates to origins discussion except possibly the Darwin thing. But since you were not specific, how can we answer?

To find the folly of your words, all you have to do is read a 6th grade level textbook.

As shown, the folly is yours.

Yet you falsely accuse science of doing exactly what religion does (which it does not do)

Origin sciences are religion. Belief based in entirety.

 

[dad]

I am sorry, I missed how this is evidence about tree rings. Oh that's right it has nothing to do with tree rings.
Ok I can't resist how many species of trees and variations of the species did god actually plant? Is that in the bible? I could not find it.

Tell us how fruit trees have no rings?? I suggest all the trees in the garden had to do with rings.

Now if you want to talk about the inability of science to explore the matter, since it is stuck in the mud of the present only, well, not my problem!

 

[Bear Wild]

Tell us how fruit trees have no rings?? I suggest all the trees in the garden had to do with rings.

Now if you want to talk about the inability of science to explore the matter, since it is stuck in the mud of the present only, well, not my problem!

Actually I would like to know more about your magical thinking. How do you know the garden had fruit trees with rings? Not stated in the bible. Maybe the rings formed after Adam took a bite out of the apple. Science has no problems with explaining matter. Your god planting a garden which had to have all the plant life that does and has existed on our planet unless you have come over from the dark side and accept evolution.

 

[dad]

Actually I would like to know more about your magical thinking. How do you know the garden had fruit trees with rings? Not stated in the bible. Maybe the rings formed after Adam took a bite out of the apple. Science has no problems with explaining matter. Your god planting a garden which had to have all the plant life that does and has existed on our planet unless you have come over from the dark side and accept evolution.

Sorry if you think that the old world trees had no rings. One way we might check is to see if there are any living trees that pre date the nature change. Seems like there are, and they have rings.

https://browse.startpage.com/do/sho...sp=a20ec66cf408a9494175d372a3d3e36a&t=default

 

[siti]

Is it just me or does time seem to go slower in certain RF threads?

 

[dad]

Is it just me or does time seem to go slower in certain RF threads?

Not sure how defeat affects some. Strange things go on inside the evo mind.

 

[dfnj]

A lack of an ability to understand what others know does not make that a "belief".

Not being able to explain what you know in simple terms to others means you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wrong. HE never said they were the same! That would be origin sciences. He says that angels exist in space out there. He says that the stars were made for man to mark time. He says that the future will be quite different and the universe you know will vanish away. He says many things about how life on earth used to be and they were different. He is not the deceiver. The god of so called science is.

You've totally missed the point - probably because you have no understanding of actual science. If the laws were different out in space or backward in time, we would expect to get nonsense results from assuming they are the same - not a completely self-consistent but false picture.

That would have to have been contrived - your god would be a deceiver: the universe's biggest fibber.

God gave the bible...

Evidence? Even the slightest morsel of a reason to believe that the incoherent, often self-contradictory, mess that is the bible (yes, I have read it), is form a god?

...guess who have pseudo sciences?

You do! Do I get a prize?

The scientific method does exactly that. They methodically assume that laws were the same, and that all space and time are the same etc. They THEN view evidences from that point they decided on!

This is nonsense. As has already been pointed out, science changes its mind in the light of evidence. All the evidence tells us that the laws we observe on earth and in the solar system, apply to the universe (at least that part of it we can see). Of course there are things that only become apparent at the larger scales, and we've had to adjust our views accordingly.

 

[dad]

If the laws were different out in space or backward in time, we would expect to get nonsense results from assuming they are the same - not a completely self-consistent but false picture.

False. Although the dates are nonsense! So is the interpretation of the fossil record! You see if most life on earth could not leave fossilized remains in a different past nature that means the small percentage of life that could leave remains is all we see in the record! Basically origins sciences are nonsense! Ludicrous fables.

If we looked at an isotope ratio for example in a rock, and interpreted the ratios as if most of (what is now) the daughter material was already here at the start of this present nature, then it would not look old! Nor would it look like there was some same nature in the past. ONLY your same state past belief makes things seem harmonious with this nature. I kid you not.

That would have to have been contrived - your god would be a deceiver: the universe's biggest fibber.

As shown, the deception ONLY lies in your belief system that first assumes and believes in a certain nature in the past and then interprets all things accordingly. Do not blame God. He clued us in and told us about the real past.

Evidence? Even the slightest morsel of a reason to believe that the incoherent, often self-contradictory, mess that is the bible (yes, I have read it), is form a god?

History is largely already fulfilled prophesy. Daniel predicted the major world kingdoms for example centuries in advance with astounding detail. But this thread is not about defending beliefs, it is about getting origin science believers to defend theirs.
Once origin science enters the field of beliefs and jockies for position, it gets left behind as a ridiculous 'also ran' minor religion!

This is nonsense. As has already been pointed out, science changes its mind in the light of evidence.

You have been shown how science never abandons it's core beliefs, only struggles to reexplain things using them in a new way after a fail!

All the evidence tells us that the laws we observe on earth and in the solar system, apply to the universe (at least that part of it we can see)

Then why have you not posted this evidence? Here you go again pretending time in the universe is all fishbowl time. You have NO idea what it is like out there. You are restricted to being a little fishbowl observer.