Science IS religion

[gnostic]

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

Then where are your evidences hat they are different?

You are making the claim time and seasons were different, then you must be the to show evidences they are different.

Without the evidences to support your claims, then they are nothing more than your unsubstantiated personal opinions.

You keeping making things up, but not once have you presented evidences to back them up.

Your claims not only make you look foolishly ignorant, but a very dishonest person.

 

[dad]

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

Let's look at an example then, to sink our teeth into it.


"Principle of Uniformitarianism The Principle of Uniformitarianism is a basic assumption of geology and most other natural sciences. It can be succinctly stated as: The present is the key to the past. This means that the processes occurring today are the same processes that occurred in the past."

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...06/The-Fundamentals-of-Tree-Ring-Research.pdf

So it is this principle that science uses.

It should be pointed out also that it was the bristlecone pines that were used to calibrate carbon dating! they adjusted the carbon dates by the tree rings.

" The precise, extended chronology of these trees is directly responsible for the accuracy of radiocarbon dating."

So, you claim that since both 'agree' on dates that must indicate that different methods are accurate. Yet here we see that one calibrates to the other.

So if you want to claim independent confirmation then let's see the example.

 

[dad]

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

The adherence to methods and procedures and beliefs/assumptions in origin sciences is something many religions share in common.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The adherence to methods and procedures and beliefs/assumptions in origin sciences is something many religions share in common.

It is clear that you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a belief.

 

[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.

Apparently explaining what science knows and what is a matter of assumption confuses you.

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

The thread is about how you can make these apply to origin issues. You can't. So we have a pompous pretension of knowledge instead.

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.

Name one, or be exposed as making false claims.

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

So now we see you pretending you have some bible case also. Comical.

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

When evo fables include early ancestors of man that are animals, that'll do er.

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.

True stories are not fables even if animals are involved.

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

No. They have their own stories. Like the common ancestor to bananas and you.

It is your Bible that has myths and fables,

False, God created animals and can feature them in history and events.

 

[dad]

Then where are your evidences hat they are different?

You are making the claim time and seasons were different, then you must be the to show evidences they are different.

Without the evidences to support your claims, then they are nothing more than your unsubstantiated personal opinions.

You keeping making things up, but not once have you presented evidences to back them up.

Your claims not only make you look foolishly ignorant, but a very dishonest person.

I am saying science doesn't know either way. So if you have evidence that they actually do post it. Or your religion will remain a bunch of foolish beliefs.

 

[dad]

It is clear that you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a belief.

So you say, so you believe.

 

[gnostic]

Apparently explaining what science knows and what is a matter of assumption confuses you.

Wow, you sure do project your own ignorance upon everyone else.

 

[gnostic]

I am saying science doesn't know either way. So if you have evidence that they actually do post it. Or your religion will remain a bunch of foolish beliefs.

I don’t have a religion, dad. So this is nothing more than strawman and projection of your own failures and your own ignorance.

 

[dad]

I don’t have a religion, dad. So this is nothing more than strawman and projection of your own failures and your own ignorance.

Maybe you should answer questions defending your beliefs...whatever you like to call them. Maybe by giving an example of some tree carbon dated that agrees with the tree ring or other dating you claim shows the 'dates' must be valid. Or maybe prove the nature in the past was the same...etc etc.

Denying you have beliefs while being unable to defend them does not look good for you.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe you should answer questions defending your beliefs...whatever you like to call them. Maybe by giving an example of some tree carbon dated that agrees with the tree ring or other dating you claim shows the 'dates' must be valid. Or maybe prove the nature in the past was the same...etc etc.

Denying you have beliefs while being unable to defend them does not look good for you.

Wow, more strawman.

Where did I bring up tree rings or carbon dating methods?

Not in this thread.

So, I believe you are talking about someone else, not me.

Whether or not I talk about it elsewhere, I didn’t say anything here, in this thread of your.

So stop blaming me for something I didn’t write or post here.

 

[dad]

Wow, more strawman.

Where did I bring up tree rings or carbon dating methods?

Not in this thread.

So, I believe you are talking about someone else, not me.

Whether or not I talk about it elsewhere, I didn’t say anything here, in this thread of your.

So stop blaming me for something I didn’t write or post here.

Looking back I see it was rationator talking about tree rings and cross evidences.

Anyhow, you should be defending your faith rather than denying you have faith based ideas.

 

[gnostic]

Looking back I see it was rationator talking about tree rings and cross evidences.

Yes.

I was talking about biology in general. I was talking about you don't understand science in biology, and I was saying how you should learn the science before you can effectively against evolution.

Talking about it without understanding what you don't know, will only make one sound ignorant.

I was not talking about any dating method.

 

[Oliver Twist]

Science is a form of animism. The idee that every man can become The Father, every son can become Jesus, and futher every Mother can become Virgin Mary. - Just as long the carry good fruit and confess bothly the Father and Son in addition thus also confess Jesus as the son of god.
Spiced With alot of doctrine, discipline and knowledge. Natural science, social science and humaniora.

 

[ratiocinator]

Let's look at an example then, to sink our teeth into it.
"Principle of Uniformitarianism The Principle of Uniformitarianism is a basic assumption of geology and most other natural sciences. It can be succinctly stated as: The present is the key to the past. This means that the processes occurring today are the same processes that occurred in the past."

You're still spectacularly missing the point. I fully accept that we are making that assumption - your problem is, that if it were very wrong, we wouldn't expect to be able to build self-consistent view of the age of the earth and universe that was wrong, we'd expect to find endless inconsistencies.

That is, unless some god was playing silly games and making the universe look old - which brings us back to Last Tuesdayism.

It should be pointed out also that it was the bristlecone pines that were used to calibrate carbon dating! they adjusted the carbon dates by the tree rings.

You really should read this: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

Yes, tree rings are one of the methods used to fine-tune carbon dating. If you assume that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has remained the same, there is an error because, when calibrated against tree ring and, for example, stalagmite data (figure 9 in the link) we can see that it has steadily decreased over the last 40,000 years (probably due to the strengthening of the Earth's magnetic field) - the maximum calibration correction to measured ages is about 15%. The point being that had nature just been arbitrarily different in the past, there is no reason to even think that there'd even have been a straight line relationship, let alone against multiple different dating methods. There would certainly be no reason to expect the methods to agree within 15%.

It's also been checked against other radiometric dating systems and other techniques that rely on different mechanisms - for example, ice cores, electron spin resonance (that measures exposure to radiation), and cosmic-ray exposure dating.

The fact is that everything is consistent and everything tells us that the earth and universe are very old. What's more, when we look out into space (and hence into the past) we still see and entirely self-consistent picture. So your "out in space" difference in nature has to be different in just the "right" way to compensate for your "back in time" difference.

Is any of this actually sinking in? Do you have any grasp of the problem you are facing?

 

[ratiocinator]

Science is a form of animism.

No it isn't.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Science is a form of animism. The idee that every man can become The Father, every son can become Jesus, and futher every Mother can become Virgin Mary. - Just as long the carry good fruit and confess bothly the Father and Son in addition thus also confess Jesus as the son of god.
Spiced With alot of doctrine, discipline and knowledge. Natural science, social science and humaniora.

This is pure, unadulterated gibberish and completely incoherent. Word salad.

It is also totally hilarious (I'm laughing as I'm typing) that a methodology that doesn't even question the existence of the supernatural (one way or the other) is somehow an adherent to supernatural beliefs. Thank you for the laugh. I needed it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Here, i this thread, are prime examples of one of the reasons why many anti-theists, like myself, detest religion of this nature.

It closes minds to knowledge, and makes otherwise intelligent men uneducatable.

DISCLAIMER: I said "many" and I speak only for myself and those who happen to also agree with me, not the community at large, so don't go accusing me of speaking for you if you don't happen to agree.

It robbed from me, personally, years of the wonderful and subjective experience of truly marveling at the vastness of our universe, the sheer scope of the size of things that are out there, the beautiful and incredible complex simplicity of the nature of our universe, and the joy of pondering the answers to questions that we do not know and possibly never will (like what was before the big bang; how did the evolution from cell division to sexual production), and ripped from my mind curiosity about our world because it was all answered for me through God of the Gaps and pseudoscience denialism. I find that .... sad.

I remember an assignment through ACE Christian Curriculum that was this simple: "Find evidence for Noah's Ark". I did quite well on that assignment; which is a total travesty, because that's not how science is supposed to work. You begin by asking a question, then following the evidence to whatever conclusion that leads to; not starting with a premise then seeking evidence to support the claim. That is the very definition of pseudosience; that wasn't education it was indoctrination. Being deceived by arguments such as "The Third Law of Thermodynamics states blah blah blah so it's not possible that we could become more complex or organized"; a complete BS lie because this law is a law of heat, energy, entropy within closed systems; not a law governing biology in open systems.

Defending "truth" with lies (like "there was a different nature and that explains everything, no evidence needed, just accept it so all your doubts go away).-- How does that work? using lies to defend truth? A bit incongruous?

Hmmm?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The adherence to methods and procedures and beliefs/assumptions in origin sciences is something many religions share in common.

Religions share much more than that in common; points you refuse to address, ponder or reply to because you know that it would destroy you position that "science is religion". By making science a religion in your own mind, you can then make pretend that science and religion are on equal footing.

The adherence to methods and procedures and beliefs/assumptions in origin sciences is something many religions share in common.

FYI: These are the same methods/procedures, beliefs/assumptions that brought you unprecedented health care, airplanes, your car, your computer, the internet, air conditioning, plentiful food, vaccines, cellphones and the myriad of other things you take for granted. The reason science employs these methods and assumptions is because .... they work. If you go to a faith healer for healing and that healing fails, you get gibberish such as "You didn't have enough faith"; or "It was God's will". But if you go to a doctor for healing and the first treatment didn't work, the doctor generally says, "I may have missed something. Let's try something else". And if these methods and assumptions work for figuring out how to erradicate our planet of certain diseases, putting men in space, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, exploring the deepest trenches of our ocean, then there is no reason to believe that they do not work for unraveling the mysteries of creation.

 

[dad]

Yes.

I was talking about biology in general. I was talking about you don't understand science in biology, and I was saying how you should learn the science before you can effectively against evolution.

Talking about it without understanding what you don't know, will only make one sound ignorant.

I was not talking about any dating method.

Great, so you do not understand biology in Noah's day. Good point. Yet there again, science uses the present as the key to the past! How does evolving now work, they ask? Then they assume that it was the same for early life on earth. Remember it is the origins issues science that is the topic here. Not how clever or well versed you think you may be in present nature medicine or biology.