Science IS religion

[dad]

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.

To talk about this "same past 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, and all science claims based on that are null and void.

Science is limited to the natural world.

Religiously! That is why it has turned to fables regarding origin issues.

.. 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'.

No, and it takes no thought where that magic creator hot little singularity speck came from either! Nor does it know what time is, why the forces exist as they do...etc etc etc etc etc. Nor does it know there are or are not spirits or anything spiritual. It merely restricts itself to present nature/physical only possible explanations. What a cult.

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

All of them. Science waves them all away as well as history and testimonies of miracles etc etc etc. Fanatical, jealous little cult.

Which prophecies?

The only prophesies so called science honors are it's own! Despite the fail rate, and absurdity of them! Cult!

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."

Yeah and so far you been to the moon! Hilarious. Even man's dying probes are not even a lousy light day away!

See, if we "stop" and ponder that maybe things are or were different, then we concede that we know nothing about nothing.

Yeah keep going. Do not be like Buzz Lightyear though and talk of 'infinity and beyond'! You stick to talking about less than one light day away, and less'!!!!!! To the fishbowl...not beyond!

No. Belief is assuming to know what you can't possibly know.

That is what your Buzz Lightyear/Fishbowl philosophy cult does.

You can't possibly know that there was a different set of "natural laws".

Why, just because your cult can't!!? Ha. Well, the issue is your religion claiming it knows, not anyone else. They have claimed there was the same nature.

Science, on the other hand, revises its conclusions based on new evidence.

You've never been out of the fishbowl, and have no clue what time in the far universe, or nature on earth was. Fishbowl revisions do not tell us about origins.

You hold a false assumption that science works on certainty.

No. They must however point out that grandiose statements of fact they make are really religious nutball fantasy when they do not deal in any certainty or fact.

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.

Fishbowl boundary! They should not even use the word cosmos when they have been hardly out of earth orbit or gravity influence! They have a Buzz Lightyear complex!

" Science does not feign knowledge where there is no knowledge.

Science IS the feigning of knowledge whenever they speak of things beyond their fishbowl mandate!!

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

Post a relevant quote/[point and use a link as support.

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

That would be..never then. So make like the energizer bunny and keep going all you like! This present state is not permanent. The energizer bunny goes to the trash when no longer useful. Man is close to the advent of REAL science!

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.

The so called dating of soil or anything else is not different methods! They are all the same belief based family of methods! The geology also uses that same family so your belief system is inbred and circular!

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.

False. You have one belief that binds them all. If man could not leave remains, by the way, praytell, how do you think you would know man existed or not??

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

One Belief to rule them all, One Belief used to find them,
One Belief to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them

 

[siti]

Once again dad shoots himself in the foot given enough time.

I don't think that's going to perturb him too much - he's more of a Black Knight type (Monty Python style)...'tis but a scratch - he won't give up even when it is obvious he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that's going to perturb him too much - he's more of a Black Knight type (Monty Python style)...'tis but a scratch - he won't give up even when it is obvious he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Black Knight and pigeon chess master extraordinaire!

 

[siti]

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

But apparently nowhere near as strange as what goes on in the unevolved mind.

 

[dad]

But apparently nowhere near as strange as what goes on in the unevolved mind.

Agreed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Circular.

Nonsense.

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.

Look up! The point is sailing majestically about 30,000ft over your head!

I'll try once but it looks like you're so lost in your faith that you can't or won't think about it. If two unconnected dating methods are used and they give the same date, and this happens consistently, there must be a reason for that. One (obvious) reason is that they are giving the correct date. If they were false, why would the number of tree rings match the carbon dating at all? What do you think the connection is? Why are both dating methods, based on different assumptions, matching up when we use them?

If nature was different in the past, it might have been different for the way trees grow and different in the way radioactive decay works but why should those two things be different in just such a way that the two dating methods match? And remember we aren't just talking about two methods. The history of the earth and wider universe has been pieced together from many different ways of measuring age.

The "assumption" that you keep on about is about nature being the same, not the age of things - nobody assumes that - that is what we get when we try to find out how old things are and all the methods we have tell us the same story.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I just told you that it's not just growth patterns. It's also seasonal cycles.

And what "old world nature"? It seems to only exist between your ears.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That's the case either way - with or without ancient bronze age myths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

When there are things that science can't cover, there is absolutely no reason to think that ancient myths or priests CAN cover them.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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

That is a very, very weak definition of "religion". Under that definition, anything is a religion: Political parties, secret societies, clubs, large numbers of occupations, being a sports fan, having certain hobbies ....

Sports Fan: "I believe my team will win this year so I will watch the games, cheer them on and have parties and barbeques".

Entrepreneurs: "I believe in our economy and I believe in my business idea, so I will open this business and run and manage it diligently".

Musicians: "I believe music does the world good, so I will learn and play and sing."

Can't you choose something that isn't so encompassing? After all, you weaken your own argument by choosing such a vague and unspecific definition.

Moreover, this definition is your own encapsulation and is not recognized by your own source; so let's pick one, shall we?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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.

This was the first on your list, from your own source. Now; if you know anything about dictionaries, the different definitions are arranged in a particular order for a particular reason. The first definition is a description of the word as it is most often used and the most widely accepted definition of the word.

So.

Science may deal with "cause" or "nature", but it does not deal with "purpose". It does not deal, in any way, with superhuman angencies; and even most scientists who happen to be religious do not include their "God" in their research or conclusions. There are no "devotional" or "ritual observances" nor does science hand down a "moral code". So by the most accepted definition of religion --- one which YOU chose ... science is NOT a religion.

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.

That's because what science holds to be true is evidence based, not belief based.

 

[dad]

I'll try once but it looks like you're so lost in your faith that you can't or won't think about it. If two unconnected dating methods are used and they give the same date, and this happens consistently, there must be a reason for that.

All the same belief underlying them. Different heads of the same snake. All connected.

One (obvious) reason is that they are giving the correct date. If they were false, why would the number of tree rings match the carbon dating at all?

The only match is in la la land in your head and fantasy. By assuming all ratios of isotopes came to exist by this nature, in this nature and from this nature, you assign so called dates based on that. The dates are bogus. Then, by looking at trees as if they all grew always IN this nature, you assign so called dates to ancient rings. Religion. Really.

What do you think the connection is? Why are both dating methods, based on different assumptions, matching up when we use them?

Just explained.

If nature was different in the past, it might have been different for the way trees grow and different in the way radioactive decay works but why should those two things be different in just such a way that the two dating methods match? And remember we aren't just talking about two methods. The history of the earth and wider universe has been pieced together from many different ways of measuring age.

Since the match is total fantasy and there is no way to check the dates, the match is a fraud. The match comes by making the same mistake in many areas. When needed they will toss out a billion or hundreds of millions or tens of millions of imaginary years as need. No problem since it is fantasy anyhow. Whatever is needed, they can weld into place and claim a fit.

The "assumption" that you keep on about is about nature being the same, not the age of things - nobody assumes that - that is what we get when we try to find out how old things are and all the methods we have tell us the same story.

ALL so called ages are nothing but same state past belief written as so called dates.

 

[dad]

I just told you that it's not just growth patterns. It's also seasonal cycles.

And what "old world nature"? It seems to only exist between your ears.

The seasonal cycles are the pattern today. In the former nature, hourly/daily/nightly influences presumably affected rings.

 

[dad]

That's the case either way - with or without ancient bronze age myths.

That is the case for those choosing the blind alley/straight jacket of being restricted to and limited by only pseudo science. That is not the case for open minded free thinkers. A renesanse from so called science is dawning soon.

 

[dad]

When there are things that science can't cover, there is absolutely no reason to think that ancient myths or priests CAN cover them.

When anything unknown needs to be covered, there is NO reason for people of faith to think that pseudo science can cover them. In fact, it is known that they cannot.

 

[dad]

That is a very, very weak definition of "religion". Under that definition, anything is a religion: Political parties, secret societies, clubs, large numbers of occupations, being a sports fan, having certain hobbies ....

Sports Fan: "I believe my team will win this year so I will watch the games, cheer them on and have parties and barbeques".

Entrepreneurs: "I believe in our economy and I believe in my business idea, so I will open this business and run and manage it diligently".

Musicians: "I believe music does the world good, so I will learn and play and sing."

Can't you choose something that isn't so encompassing? After all, you weaken your own argument by choosing such a vague and unspecific definition.

Moreover, this definition is your own encapsulation and is not recognized by your own source; so let's pick one, shall we?

In addition to the belief, there is the methodical following and adherence to the belief system, even when against reason. Such is pseudo science religion. Origin sciences has plunged man into the dark ages, that are the darkest in history. Not just of the world but probably in all universes ever created.

 

[ratiocinator]

All the same belief underlying them. Different heads of the same snake. All connected.

You haven't explained the connection - this is just empty bluster.

The only match is in la la land in your head and fantasy.

Since the match is total fantasy and there is no way to check the dates, the match is a fraud.

These statements are simply untrue.

 

[metis]

When I read some of these so-called arguments against the ToE, it reminds me of the many lies I was taught in the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in. How can a church teach such lies and distortions and still be called "Christian" is beyond me? Fortunately, the church I eventually converted to doesn't do this.

So, when we see some here at RF basically ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the evolution of life and also the Big Bang, please realize that they have been effectively brainwashed by a church telling them fabrications and lies in the name of "Christianity". The culpability of some here is that they don't spend the time to actually check out this from actual scientific sources.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

In addition to the belief, there is the methodical following and adherence to the belief system, even when against reason. Such is pseudo science religion. Origin sciences has plunged man into the dark ages, that are the darkest in history. Not just of the world but probably in all universes ever created.

There you go again, listing the failures of religion and putting it onto science.

So, when we see some here at RF basically ignoring the overwhelming evidence for the evolution of life and also the Big Bang, please realize that they have been effectively brainwashed by a church telling them fabrications and lies in the name of "Christianity". The culpability of some here is that they don't spend the time to actually check out this from actual scientific sources.

Yes. I was one too.

 

[gnostic]

@dad

Why do you persist on talking about subjects that you have never study before, or even bother to learn?

Whenever you post and write something, like biology/evolution, the sun and stars or about the Big Bang, you only demonstrate to everyone just how very little you really know.

You don't even understand basic scientific concepts, like scientific method, empirical evidences, scientific theory, hypothesis, etc.

You really should learn science, before you can argue against anything about it.

This thread alone, so many members have already corrected your misunderstanding, but you just stubbornly refused to learn from your mistakes.

All you are doing is making false claims, one after another, and the only who make claims of pseudoscience is just you. You are really embarrassing to read.

The only subject you really know is the bible, but even this you are embarrassingly ignorant.

Religiously! That is why it has turned to fables regarding origin issues.

You still don’t bloody understand what fables are.

Fable are stories of moral with animals playing parts or roles in the narratives. These types of stories are featured -

1. in myths (eg in stories that you know of in the Bible, like the talking donkey in Numbers or talking serpent in Genesis, the ravens that bring food to Elijah, or Jesus telling his disciples where to set the net to catch fishes, or in animals that are featured in visions, prophecies and in Revelation),
2. in parables or allegories,
3. in fairytales and folktales.

Talking animals or humans who can understand the languages of animals, are common features of fables, and this would include Genesis’ serpent and Numbers’ donkey.

There are no such claims in science that donkey or snake can speak human languages like your Bible do.

And in modern eras, you will only see talking animals in fiction (eg novels or children books, in cartoons and comics), in movies or tv shows.

Other features of fables including animals with anthropomorphic behaviours, or humans with other animals’ body parts, eg the Greek myths of Minotaur, a beast with body of man and head of a bull, or the Greek Sphinx with head of woman, body of lion and wings of eagle, which tells riddles to travellers, or Ezekiel’s angels with wings and four faces (faces of man, lion, eagle and ox), or the two beasts in Revelation.

It is your Bible that has myths and fables, but all you do is make silly excuses to make the biblical stories exception. These apologetic excuses to exclude the Bible containing fables, are just your pathetic bias to overlook fables in your biblical stories.

You don’t understand what fables are, and therefore you are in no position to judge which stories are fables and which are not.