Science IS religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

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??

For a tree to grow 1000 tree rings in one year, there would have to be 1000 winter / summer cycles in one year + enough time during 1 cycle for the required build up of cells to form said ring.

It makes zero sense to even suggest it.

It's not irrelevant if the process you are talking about is completely incompatible with the conclusion you wish to draw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why would we start with that?
What evidence is there to suggest we should start like that?

And keep in mind that the bible is the claim, not the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

what "nature change"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yea. In "Ultra Special" relativity, time slows down in the proximity of extreme stupidity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Some people are either too dishonest, stupid, or scared to learn. When religion is involved it is usually too scared. One can't blame the messenger.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Don't be silly. You don't appear to have any grasp at all about how science works. You're just preaching from a position of total ignorance.

Science is iterative. It observers, builds hypotheses, then tests them against reality, revises or replaces the hypotheses, and tests again, and so on until we have a model that matches reality. If, for example, the assumption that the laws were the same out in space, was totally wrong, it would absurdly improbable that you'd be able to build a constant model that matched all your observations - unless the real laws were contrived to deceive.

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!

Only a very small sample of creatures are fossilised anyway - you're just ranting.

What do you think is happening here? Are almost all the people in the world who study this incompetent, lying, is it a consirancy, what? And isn't it odd that the tiny, tiny little cult that disagree have an obvious, glaring, religious vested interest in the mainstream view being wrong (it contradicts their interpretation of their favourite book of myths)...?

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.

It's quite clear it's you who's been kidded. The point is that we don't just rely on one dating technique, but a lot of different ones and that they agree with each other. That is why a young earth would have to have been contrived to make it look old to match what we observe, and that's before we get ito how that all fits in with astronomy and astrophysics and the things we've found out about the universe as a whole.

This is not an assumption - it was deduced from multiple different types of evidence.

Here's some reading for you: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

 

[Polymath257]

It's impossible to argue with someone who adopts the position of Last Thursdayism.

Not because it is true, but because it ignores what common words mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's impossible to argue with someone who adopts the position of Last Thursdayism.

Not because it is true, but because it ignores what common words mean.

Then don't.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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!

You do understand that origin sciences do not depend entirely on the fossil record? You do understand that the fossil record is actually a very small piece of the evidence for evolution?

Then why have you not posted this evidence?

Because you would not accept it anyway. Because my personal grasp on this is tenuous enough that I could not make an effective teacher. Because the OP claims "science is religion" and that is the topic of the discussion. I have posted many rebuttals to why science is not religion and you have yet to offer rebuttals; so let's start over.

Define "religion". That would be a good place to start. If we agree on the definition of "religion" then we are empowered to rationally discuss whether or not science is a "religion" based on that definition.

 

[dad]

For a tree to grow 1000 tree rings in one year, there would have to be 1000 winter / summer cycles in one year + enough time during 1 cycle for the required build up of cells to form said ring.

Not sure why you are citing present nature growth patterns?? Either talk about this nature, or the old world nature.

 

[dad]

Why would we start with that?
What evidence is there to suggest we should start like that?

And keep in mind that the bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Keep in mind that without the bible you are forced to limit yourself to what science can cover. That does not include this issue.

 

[dad]

what "nature change"?

What flood? What heaven? What prophets or miracles? What God? What prophesies? Once again it is fine with me if you want to stick to the little science CAN cover! So then, for science we ask, 'why always a same nature'?

Haha

 

[dad]

Don't be silly. You don't appear to have any grasp at all about how science works. You're just preaching from a position of total ignorance.

Actually if you have no garsp on when it stops working and it's limits, you are talking from a position of belief and ignorance.

Science is iterative. It observers,

It does NOT observe nature and forces in the far past on earth. Really.

builds hypotheses,

Based solely on the little predetermined and set criteria and methods they have embraced while excluding all else. So that is fable building.

then tests them against reality,

They cannot test either time in the far universe, or the forces that used to exist on earth long long long before science existed!

Now if you want to talk about something they actually can test, fine, get to it.

If, for example, the assumption that the laws were the same out in space, was totally wrong, it would absurdly improbable that you'd be able to build a constant model that matched all your observations - unless the real laws were contrived to deceive.

To a large degree I think that point may have some validity. But time is not a law. So that could affect how we perceive forces working here. For example, if it takes so much time here for a radioactive decay to occur, then that is the only way we will ever observe it, because we always only ever see the light here! Now if we see some aspect in that light (decay related) that involves time, then what we are seeing is only the time that exists here. Here, all things unfold in time a certain way! There is a certain relationship between space and time HERE that dictates that all things here take so much time. So if some process that appeared to us to be decay here, or that was radioactive decay out in the stars took a little (or a lot) more or less time there than here...we could never know! I would think this could be a factor in any model built in the fishbowl!

Only a very small sample of creatures are fossilised anyway - you're just ranting.

Not at all. I already accounted for that also. That misses the point though. If Adam and mankind, and most animals and fish and birds at that time could not leave fossil remains, then most life on earth would not be represented in the fossil record! You could not say for example 'man and rabbits are not in the Cambrian record, so man and rabbits did not exist'!
So let's say 4% of life on earth in that time COULD fossilize. We would still assume that only a small sample of THOSE creatures may have been fossilized!

It's quite clear it's you who's been kidded. The point is that we don't just rely on one dating technique, but a lot of different ones and that they agree with each other.

Name ANY one of these that are not dependent on the SAME underlying belief of a same nature in the past??????????? Ha. Naturally when you color all evidences they will all tend to share some color!

That is why a young earth would have to have been contrived to make it look old to match what we observe, and that's before we get ito how that all fits in with astronomy and astrophysics and the things we've found out about the universe as a whole.

The same 'fishbowlcentric' beliefs and methods are used low and high! Circular.

As for radiometric dating, the method of assigning dates based on present decay processes simply cannot work unless the present state always existed. That is just a statement of belief it did basically.

You see, just because isotopes are NOW involved in a relationship that results in decay, does not mean that in a former nature they would also have been. It all depends on how the invisible forces and laws affect atoms and spin, and charge, and attraction and etc etc etc etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually if you have no garsp on when it stops working and it's limits, you are talking from a position of belief and ignorance.
It does NOT observe nature and forces in the far past on earth. Really.


Based solely on the little predetermined and set criteria and methods they have embraced while excluding all else. So that is fable building.

They cannot test either time in the far universe, or the forces that used to exist on earth long long long before science existed!

Now if you want to talk about something they actually can test, fine, get to it.



To a large degree I think that point may have some validity. But time is not a law. So that could affect how we perceive forces working here. For example, if it takes so much time here for a radioactive decay to occur, then that is the only way we will ever observe it, because we always only ever see the light here! Now if we see some aspect in that light (decay related) that involves time, then what we are seeing is only the time that exists here. Here, all things unfold in time a certain way! There is a certain relationship between space and time HERE that dictates that all things here take so much time. So if some process that appeared to us to be decay here, or that was radioactive decay out in the stars took a little (or a lot) more or less time there than here...we could never know! I would think this could be a factor in any model built in the fishbowl!

Not at all. I already accounted for that also. That misses the point though. If Adam and mankind, and most animals and fish and birds at that time could not leave fossil remains, then most life on earth would not be represented in the fossil record! You could not say for example 'man and rabbits are not in the Cambrian record, so man and rabbits did not exist'!
So let's say 4% of life on earth in that time COULD fossilize. We would still assume that only a small sample of THOSE creatures may have been fossilized!

Name ANY one of these that are not dependent on the SAME underlying belief of a same nature in the past??????????? Ha. Naturally when you color all evidences they will all tend to share some color!

The same 'fishbowlcentric' beliefs and methods are used low and high! Circular.

As for radiometric dating, the method of assigning dates based on present decay processes simply cannot work unless the present state always existed. That is just a statement of belief it did basically.

You see, just because isotopes are NOW involved in a relationship that results in decay, does not mean that in a former nature they would also have been. It all depends on how the invisible forces and laws affect atoms and spin, and charge, and attraction and etc etc etc etc.

Sigh, dad still believes in his make believe fish-bowl and does not understand that concept of evidence.

Why am I not surprised.

Are you ready to learn what is and what is not evidence or are you just going to keep running away and hiding your head in the sand?

 

[ratiocinator]

Name ANY one of these that are not dependent on the SAME underlying belief of a same nature in the past??????????? Ha. Naturally when you color all evidences they will all tend to share some color!

I don't know if you're simply not paying attention, not able to understand, or simply don't want to.

Look, as an example, if tree rings grew differently in the past, then that would be inaccurate and if radioactivity worked differently in the past, then radiometric dating would be wrong - but if they match each other (which they do where there is an overlap), then either they are both right or there is some other reason why correlate. When it's not only two methods, but every single way we have found to estimate these things that all match each other, then the chances of them all being wrong and matching by pure luck are vanishingly small (unless a god has deliberately set out to deceive us).

So going on and on about our conclusions could be wrong if things were not working according to our assumptions, is pointless unless you can explain all the astonishing coincidences that mean that our picture of the earth, the universe, and their history is so self-consistent.

As @Polymath257 said, you are effectively adopting a Last Thursdayism type argument but you don't seem to quite understand enough about science to realise it.

 

[metis]

What's so bizarre is that some seem to think that the myriads of scientists that work with various aspects of the ToE and the Big Bang are ignorant and/or are dishonest. How much evidence that these scientists are so ignorant and/or dishonest can they present? Answer: 0.

On top of that, they don't seen to understand much about the use of "allegory" in scripture and theology.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You do understand that origin sciences do not depend entirely on the fossil record? You do understand that the fossil record is actually a very small piece of the evidence for evolution?

You conveniently ignored this.

Define "religion". That would be a good place to start. If we agree on the definition of "religion" then we are empowered to rationally discuss whether or not science is a "religion" based on that definition.

You conveniently ignored this. This is the gist of this thread; Right? Discussing the claim that "science is religion?"

Either talk about this nature, or the old world nature.

Or we could talk about fairies. Nevermind that there is no evidence to support the existence of fairies. We can still talk about them and throw them into the mix. To talk about this "old world nature", you must first put forth evidence that an "old world nature" existed. Without that evidence, without that validation that such a thing existed, we have nothing to discuss.

Keep in mind that without the bible you are forced to limit yourself to what science can cover.

Science is limited to the natural world. By making a claim that that was an "old world nature", you are discussing the natural world. Science can cover the natural world.

What flood?

There wasn't a world wide flood.

What heaven?

No evidence. We are talking a hypothetical, which is useless for the topic of whether or not science is a religion. Furthermore, unlike religions, science takes no thought in "heaven, hell, Hades, Shoel, ghosts, spirits, Nirvana, Happy Hunting Grounds" or any other theology of "life after death'. Another reason why science is not a religion.

What prophets or miracles?

Which claim? Which religion? Ragnarok and Asatru? The miracles o the Bible? The predictions of Nostradamus? Need to be more specific here.

What God?

Which one?

What prophesies?

Which prophecies?

So then, for science we ask, 'why always a same nature'?

That's a great question! Here is a quip I took somewhere: "We'll never verify this in every possible place in the universe -- but until we find a place that doesn't behave this way, we keep going." See, if we "stop" and ponder that maybe things are or were different, then we concede that we know nothing about nothing. The accomplishments of mankind make that proposition highly, highly unlikely. Moreover, please note that "until we ind a place that doesn't behave this way" ... so find us evidence of a place or time that doesn't behave this way, and the assumptions of science will be revised accordingly. That's how science works. It isn't so dogmatic as you want it to be.

Actually if you have no garsp on when it stops working and it's limits, you are talking from a position of belief and ignorance.

No. Belief is assuming to know what you can't possibly know. You can't possibly know that there was a different set of "natural laws". Yet you postulate it as a certainty in order to defend your religious beliefs. You create a position of unfalsifiability; there is always some question or mystery to keep your beliefs going. Science, on the other hand, revises its conclusions based on new evidence. Another reason why science is not a religion. Thank you for helping me point that out.

You hold a false assumption that science works on certainty. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos." Science does not feign knowledge where there is no knowledge. Religion does. Yet another reason why science is not a religion. Thank you again for all your invaluable help in showing that science is not religion.

It does NOT observe nature and forces in the far past on earth.

Yes. It does.

Based solely on the little predetermined and set criteria and methods they have embraced while excluding all else.

Based on evidence.

But time is not a law.

Actually, it is. Please google "Law of Time".

So that could affect how we perceive forces working here. For example, if it takes so much time here for a radioactive decay to occur, then that is the only way we will ever observe it, because we always only ever see the light here! Now if we see some aspect in that light (decay related) that involves time, then what we are seeing is only the time that exists here. Here, all things unfold in time a certain way! There is a certain relationship between space and time HERE that dictates that all things here take so much time. So if some process that appeared to us to be decay here, or that was radioactive decay out in the stars took a little (or a lot) more or less time there than here...we could never know!

Science accepts that. But until there is evidence to suggest that natural forces behave differently under different circumstances, we keep going.

If Adam and mankind, and most animals and fish and birds at that time could not leave fossil remains, then most life on earth would not be represented in the fossil record! You could not say for example 'man and rabbits are not in the Cambrian record, so man and rabbits did not exist'!

But you know it's not that simple. At least you *should* know this. There are various methods by which specimens are dated, including (but not limited to) the depth at which these were recovered, radiometric dating of the specimen, radiometric dating of the soil in which it was uncovered, study of the ecology and geology of the area which may give false readings (in a valiant attempt to remove error), etc. Based on multiple criteria, then, we can rest assured that "man and rabbits did not exist in the Cambrian era". To even postulate this as a possibility shows me that you have even less knowledge about paleontology than I do and are simply talking out of your hat.

As for radiometric dating, the method of assigning dates based on present decay processes simply cannot work unless the present state always existed.

That would be a hella coincidence if all the different methods we use for dating just happened to coincide and cross-confirm each other.

 

[dad]

You do understand that origin sciences do not depend entirely on the fossil record? You do understand that the fossil record is actually a very small piece of the evidence for evolution?

Yes. And so...?

Because you would not accept it anyway. Because my personal grasp on this is tenuous enough that I could not make an effective teacher.

More of a believer than teacher then. OK.

Define "religion". That would be a good place to start. If we agree on the definition of "religion" then we are empowered to rationally discuss whether or not science is a "religion" based on that definition.

Here is one..

"noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of humanaffairs.

a specific .. set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

a particular set of beliefs and practices:


the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

Definition of religion | Dictionary.com

Basically, it is considered a set of beliefs practiced by a group of people!

Now normally we think of religions honest enough to admit they are belief based, and who also admit a god of some kind. However, since the origin sciences belief set involves the origin of the universe and life, it does deal in creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. And so...?

More of a believer than teacher then. OK.




Here is one..

"noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of humanaffairs.

a specific .. set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

a particular set of beliefs and practices:


the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

Definition of religion | Dictionary.com

Basically, it is considered a set of beliefs practiced by a group of people!

Now normally we think of religions honest enough to admit they are belief based, and who also admit a god of some kind. However, since the origin sciences belief set involves the origin of the universe and life, it does deal in creation.

Nice, so by your own definitions science is not a religion. Once again dad shoots himself in the foot given enough time.

 

[dad]

Look, as an example, if tree rings grew differently in the past, then that would be inaccurate and if radioactivity worked differently in the past, then radiometric dating would be wrong - but if they match each other (which they do where there is an overlap),

Circular. The isotopes are viewed as having been a result of decay, rather than already existing or involved in some other nature/process. All the rings are also viewed as having originated in THIS nature. So any so called agreement is inbred, and only as valid as the assumptions/beliefs used in interpreting things. There is also agreement when we view the rings and isotopes without your same state past coloring!

Example, we could look at rings from Methuselah (bristlecone pine) that exceed 5000. Let's say around the area of 6800 rings. We could view the rings pre 4500 deep to have been rapidly grown in the former world nature. (about 2300 rings) We might assume that took a century or so to grow that many rings at the time. Then we can look at the carbon ratios IN those rings. We could assume that this also was affected by the former nature. The result is a young tree and isotopes. There is no rule that says we must use your particular religion to view all things.

then either they are both right or there is some other reason why correlate. When it's not only two methods, but every single way we have found to estimate these things that all match each other, then the chances of them all being wrong and matching by pure luck are vanishingly small (unless a god has deliberately set out to deceive us).

Pretty simple to determine. Just show the details and basis of dating rings pre 4500 deep!
(on a side note I have never seen anyone able to produce a close up picture of rings in this depth on a tree having several thousand rings such as the britlecone pines. Not sure why. Apparently they do exist somewhere, can anyone post a pic of these rings?)