Science IS religion

[dad]

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.

Wrong. The only issue is whether you have any consistency in reality, not within your religion. People might claim that the spaghetti monster pooped carbon, so whenever we see carbon in the universe that is evidence...from many different things...that the spaghetti monster was there and did it.

That is, unless some god was playing silly games and making the universe look old

When you interpret creation using old age religion, don't blame God when it looks old TO YOU!

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%.

Probably due to...woulda coulda shoulda. Coral growth and other things all depend also on the nature that exists, as to how fast they grow. So when you take a broad brush and paint everything with old age religion, it all looks old TO YOU. But in every case no item can stand on it's own, the only so called correlation is internal, and inbred in your belief system.

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%.

In your mind there is some clear straight line relationship. Give a specific example and let's all take a looky loo at how straight things really are!?

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.

All use the same belief of course.

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.

I have not talked about a different nature in space. I have merely pointed out that science does not know what time is like out there. That means all perceptions of sizes of galaxies, stars etc etc and distances are totally wrong.

 

[dad]

Religions share much more than that in common;

Such as?

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.

FYI they work only NOW and here. They cannot be superimposed onto the origins issues. Nor is there a single things in this world from science that is due to origins sciences. The medicines improved by evolution ideas have ZERO to do with evolution in the distant past! That would have more to do with things like how bacteria or some such now adapt and evolve.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wrong. The only issue is whether you have any consistency in reality, not within your religion.

Self-consistency between independent measurements, is evidence that the assumptions are correct. Why are you finding this so hard? Are you afraid to even think about it?

People might claim that the spaghetti monster pooped carbon, so whenever we see carbon in the universe that is evidence...from many different things...that the spaghetti monster was there and did it.

More akin to what you believe...

When you interpret creation using old age religion, don't blame God when it looks old TO YOU!

So when you take a broad brush and paint everything with old age religion, it all looks old TO YOU.

Nobody decided that the earth and universe were old and went looking to confirm it. That may be how you approach things (your interpretation of your incoherent, self-contradictory book of myths, must be right, so everything that contradicts it must be wrong) but that isn't how science works.

By the way do you think religion is good or bad? Just that you keep on accusing scientists of being religious... err... just like you.

Give a specific example and let's all take a looky loo at how straight things really are!?

I already did - look at the document and the graph I mentioned.

I have merely pointed out that science does not know what time is like out there. That means all perceptions of sizes of galaxies, stars etc etc and distances are totally wrong.

Yes, I know that this is your blind faith, evidence- and reasoning-free assertion but it doesn't address the problem of the consistency of multiple different and independent measurements all leading us to the same conclusion.

Unless your god is a liar - there is copious evidence that you are wrong. You just don't seem to be able to even understand why...

 

[Milton Platt]

When the method consists of using the present as the key to the past and a belief that nature was the same, that is a belief method. You are welcome to show it is more than beliefs here. Why can't you do that!? Ha

Religion.

Everything we do is based at some point upon some basic assumptions. Religion is based upon a different set of assumptions. It is the assumption that the dogma and supernatural thinking in a religious book is from a supernatural god. We have good reasons to assume that nature functions in a predictable way. We have no good reasons to believe religious dogma.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everything we do is based at some point upon some basic assumptions. Religion is based upon a different set of assumptions. It is the assumption that the dogma and supernatural thinking in a religious book is from a supernatural god. We have good reasons to assume that nature functions in a predictable way. We have no good reasons to believe religious dogma.

Well, I use evidence when I understand religion.
Here is one such case:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

religion | Definition & List of Religions
So your view seems not to based on general evidence, but is rather limited to many religions, but not all.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/Religion-and-its-alternatives#ref311156

 

[dad]

Self-consistency between independent measurements, is evidence that the assumptions are correct. Why are you finding this so hard? Are you afraid to even think about it?

You were asked to provide a specific example. We shall see.

Nobody decided that the earth and universe were old and went looking to confirm it.

They decided nature was always the same...the present is the key to the past..and started viewing things that way. Since it is obvious creation did not create itself, pseudo science had to invoke mind bending long ages for it to have happened.

Science seems to have no interest in stopping to see what is right, but more of an interest in attributing creation to anything but God.

By the way do you think religion is good or bad? Just that you keep on accusing scientists of being religious... err... just like you.

Good beliefs are good. Bad ones are bad. Pseudo science is not just bad but exceedingly wicked.

I already did - look at the document and the graph I mentioned.

Explain what is graphed.

 

[dad]

Everything we do is based at some point upon some basic assumptions. Religion is based upon a different set of assumptions. It is the assumption that the dogma and supernatural thinking in a religious book is from a supernatural god. We have good reasons to assume that nature functions in a predictable way. We have no good reasons to believe religious dogma.

So you admit assumptions are basically what origin sciences is all about. OK. Not only assumptions but beliefs.

Various religions do have some assumptions also, that is true. Christian faith is well grounded in history and documentation. Beliefs have been verified, fulfilled, tested, tried, proven, repeated, observed.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Such as?

*sigh*
So now you are asking me to go back through the thread and find what has already been said and repost them to illustrate the myriad of factors religions have in common with each other? Well, if you didn't pay attention to them the first time, I doubt you will the second time; but ok.


-- herein we have another difference that shows science is not religion. Religion depends on absolute truth: as in, an absolute definition of a word or an absolute authority (some dictionary website); whereas science is not so prescriptive and rigid in the exploration of the natural world;

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- (PS; creating a position of unfalsifiability is a hug no-no in science but is a common practice among religions).

-- 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.


*whew*
There are a few of them.

 

[ratiocinator]

You were asked to provide a specific example. We shall see.

I've given you several examples, and an article, written by a Christian, not an atheist, to read about it. Then there is the confirmation of great age from totally unrelated fields like astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

They decided nature was always the same...the present is the key to the past..and started viewing things that way.

Yes - that was a hypothesis. What you still seem to be refusing to think about, is that if it were wrong we'd expect to see endless contradictions, not a self-consistent but wrong picture (unless it had been contrived to look old).

Since it is obvious creation did not create itself, pseudo science had to invoke mind bending long ages for it to have happened.

This is simply untrue. I thought bearing false witness was a no-no. Nobody decide that a long time was needed - that's just what the evidence has told us.

Science seems to have no interest in stopping to see what is right, but more of an interest in attributing creation to anything but God.

More nonsense. Many scientists are not atheists at all. Science just follows the evidence. Are your seriously convinced that this is all some sort of conspiracy to deny the existence of god(s)? Seriously?

As for the fundamental mystery of existence, science has no answer, but then, neither do you. Why do you think your god exists, rather than another god, no god, or nothing at all?

You (rather ineffectively) criticise science but where is the slightest hint of any evidence for what you believe?

 

[dad]

*sigh*
So now you are asking me to go back through the thread and find what has already been said and repost them to illustrate the myriad of factors religions have in common with each other?

No. Why would I care what religious beliefs have in common or not?? The issue is the beliefs used by science for origins.

-- Religion depends on:

• Authority. Someone said it, so therefore, its true. There are no such "prophets" in science.

False. Many men of renown in science, like Hawkings used to claim all sorts of weird prophetic things. People believed them. They present their fables as if they have authority, and even have legal rights to preach in schools.

• Absolute Truth. Science does not deal in this,

  Science believes reality of the past is to be determined by the nature of the present. It hypocritically claims there is no absolute truth, while presenting it's fables as just that.

• Conclusions without Evidence

All origin science stories are conclusions without evidence.
There is no evidence for the same nature in the past they use and embrace and model with. They call whatever they spray with their foul beliefs 'evidence'. before it gets dunked in their beliefs, it is not really thought of as 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.

    They hold the origin sciences priesthood in general in reverence. If some normally worshiped and respected leader varies from the party line on some issue, they are overruled. But when they call for evacuation from earth like chicken little or claim aliens are coming or some such, many hold their opinions in esteem.

• Faith. The loose definition of faith, in the religious sense, is belief without evidence.

  Great, so prove your same state past, or it is belief. Simple.

-- 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.

Since science cannot deal with greater truths and spiritual issues it has no valid opinion either way. Might as well ask a rock.

Science, on the other hand, revises its conclusions based on new evidence. Another reason why science is not a religion.

No more than the pope revises catholicism. The preiesthood of psuedo science merely tweaks it's belief based conclusions when busted, but does so with yet more of the same belief based premises.

-- (PS; creating a position of unfalsifiability is a hug no-no in science but is a common practice among religions).

Let's see you falsify the claimed same nature in the past by science?

We would know nature was actually not the same, because...?? Or, if such and such was found, that would disprove a same nature in the past...?

-- 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."

You suggest scientists are not uncomfortable being ignorant. Who could disagree??

As for where the poor ignorant religious devotees of so called science may think they live, metaphorically, well, who really cares??

Science does not feign knowledge where there is no knowledge

That is what origin science IS.

. Religion does

Not the faith in the One true God.

 

[dad]

I've given you several examples, and an article, written by a Christian, not an atheist, to read about it. Then there is the confirmation of great age from totally unrelated fields like astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

You might as well link to mother goose stories. You need to lift out a point from your spam link and try to defend or discuss it. I am aware of the various claims of origin sciences and exactly why they claim it. It is not I that need to familiarize myself with the issues. Really.

Yes - that was a hypothesis. What you still seem to be refusing to think about, is that if it were wrong we'd expect to see endless contradictions, not a self-consistent but wrong picture (unless it had been contrived to look old).

False> I thought about what we might see or not. If some unknown previous nature changed, and left the laws and forces/nature we now live in, we would NOT be looking for any of the things you suggest! No change IN our light speed is expected. No change IN our forces etc etc. The change was to the former nature.

This is simply untrue. I thought bearing false witness was a no-no. Nobody decide that a long time was needed - that's just what the evidence has told us.

I suggest that long ages are needed in the belief system of those claiming that nature basically created itself. But unless you have some relevant history on the issue we can agree to disagree.

More nonsense. Many scientists are not atheists at all. Science just follows the evidence. Are your seriously convinced that this is all some sort of conspiracy to deny the existence of god(s)? Seriously?

I did not say scientists were all atheists. What nonsense.
But notice that science never looks to God as an explanation? Notice they must use 'naturalistic' explanations only? That equates to anything BUT God. The explanation is NOT nature or natural only. Their belief system exclusively says it is. That is basically a religion of unbelief in God despite many people of supposed faith in the bible joining the party.

As for the fundamental mystery of existence, science has no answer, but then, neither do you. Why do you think your god exists, rather than another god, no god, or nothing at all?

They mystery is not why God exists, but why we do! Science claims answers. They are all faith based 'answers'. I kid you not.

You (rather ineffectively) criticise science but where is the slightest hint of any evidence for what you believe?

The world and people's lives, and history abounds with evidences for my beliefs. That is not the issue here. That is settled.

 

[ratiocinator]

You need to lift out a point from your spam link and try to defend or discuss it. I am aware of the various claims of origin sciences and exactly why they claim it. It is not I that need to familiarize myself with the issues. Really.

You obviously do need to familiarise yourself with it - you have shown appalling ignorance of the issues - and you refuse to educate yourself! The whole point of the article (and my point in general here) is that there is lots, and lots, and lots of evidence that all interlinks and confirms the same story.

The article just covers a tiny portion of the evidence and you won't even read it!

I thought about what we might see or not. If some unknown previous nature changed, and left the laws and forces/nature we now live in, we would NOT be looking for any of the things you suggest! No change IN our light speed is expected. No change IN our forces etc etc. The change was to the former nature.

I didn't suggest we would be looking for anything - do pay attention. I really don't know how to make this any simpler and I don't know why you won't even address the point.

Suggesting that, if we made a basic wrong assumption (that nature didn't change), then we would, entirely by chance, arrive at a totally self-consistent picture of the past, based on multiple methods across multiple disciplines, but an entirely incorrect one - is just laughable, silly, ridiculous, stupid.

If you can't grasp that - there really is no point.

I suggest that long ages are needed in the belief system of those claiming that nature basically created itself.

That is not a belief system of science.

But notice that science never looks to God as an explanation? Notice they must use 'naturalistic' explanations only?

That would be because science is a naturalistic methodology. How on earth would it work otherwise? Of course, it could detect things it couldn't explain but there's no way to know if that is something unnatural or supernatural or if we just haven't found the natural explanation yet.

That equates to anything BUT God.

No, it doesn't - obviously.

They mystery is not why God exists, but why we do!

Why should we not ask why a god exists? This is incredible double standards. If a god (or gods) exists, it is clearly just as much of a mystery as the existence of the universe - arguably a bigger mystery.

That's why god is not actually any sort of explanation - it's nothing more than a just-so story.

Science claims answers.

It claims some answers and provides evidence (unlike you) that you and your cult ignore and misrepresent.

The world and people's lives, and history abounds with evidences for my beliefs.

Such as? I see no evidence of any of the thousands of gods humans have believed in - where is this evidence?

That is not the issue here.

Double standards.

That is settled.

Nope.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Ah, dad. I feel such empathy for you.

False. Many men of renown in science, like Hawkings used to claim all sorts of weird prophetic things. People believed them.

Fail Level 6
There is a big difference between prophecy and prediction.

They present their fables as if they have authority, and even have legal rights to preach in schools.

Fail Level 10
I detest this persecution complex. You do not understand the difference between evidence and claim. You do not understand anything at all about science. I truly pity you.

It hypocritically claims there is no absolute truth, while presenting it's fables as just that.

Fail Level 10
Everything within science is subject to scrutiny. Nothing science has demonstrated to be true is considered "absolute truth".

All origin science stories are conclusions without evidence.

Fail Level 10
Your refusal to recognize the evidence doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

They hold the origin sciences priesthood in general in reverence.

Fail Level 10
Newton was revised by Einstein. That is just one of countless examples science does not consider any scientist as having divine revelation, but instead depends on evidence.

If some normally worshiped and respected leader varies from the party line on some issue, they are overruled.

Fail Level 10
Its called "evidence" and "peer review". The outliers aren't overruled because they disagreed. They are overruled because of lack of convincing evidence. Galileo and Einstein didn't agree with the general consensus. They presented evidence to substantiate their claims.

But when they call for evacuation from earth like chicken little or claim aliens are coming or some such, many hold their opinions in esteem.

Fail Level 10
I have never, ever heard a scientist call for earth evacuation or visitation from extraterrestrials.

Great, so prove your same state past, or it is belief. Simple.

Fail Level 4
Again. You don't understand the difference between assumption and belief.

Since science cannot deal with greater truths and spiritual issues it has no valid opinion either way. Might as well ask a rock.

Fail Level 10
Nor does it purport to. That is why it is not a religion.

No more than the pope revises catholicism. The preiesthood of psuedo science merely tweaks it's belief based conclusions when busted, but does so with yet more of the same belief based premises.

Fail Level 10.
You assign the failures of the papacy to science because you refuse to understand.

Let's see you falsify the claimed same nature in the past by science?

Fail Level 8
If (or when) we find a place or time where these laws behave differently, it would be falsified, because this is an assumption and not a dogmatic belief.

Now.

Let's see you falsify the existence of God.

We would know nature was actually not the same, because...?? Or, if such and such was found, that would disprove a same nature in the past...?

Fail Level 3
Great question.
If we found a place or time when the natural laws did, indeed, behave differently.
In fact, now that I think about it, it is postulated by many theoretical physicists that there could be different universes where *gasp* the natural laws are not the same!!

That is what origin science IS.

Fail Level 10
Again, your inability to accept the evidence doesn't make it go away.

============================================

I empathize with you because I was once as fanatical and dogmatic as you are. I was as indoctrinated as you into the belief that science (or the "origin" sciences) were evil with the goal of leading men away from God.

Do you know why I did not, at that time, take a serious look at the evidence?

Because I was afraid to.

My frustration level has reached a pinnacle where I can't take any more, so I am unfollowing.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No. Why would I care what religious beliefs have in common or not?? The issue is the beliefs used by science for origins.

The reason why you should care what religious beliefs have in common is answered by you in the very statement I have quoted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*sigh*
So now you are asking me to go back through the thread and find what has already been said and repost them to illustrate the myriad of factors religions have in common with each other? Well, if you didn't pay attention to them the first time, I doubt you will the second time; but ok.


-- herein we have another difference that shows science is not religion. Religion depends on absolute truth: as in, an absolute definition of a word or an absolute authority (some dictionary website); whereas science is not so prescriptive and rigid in the exploration of the natural world;

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- 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.

-- (PS; creating a position of unfalsifiability is a hug no-no in science but is a common practice among religions).

-- 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.


*whew*
There are a few of them.

That is one way to go about understanding religion, yet is not true of all religion.
The point you made only apply to some aspects of some religions and what all religions have in common have nothing to do with religion as such.
There can be given no absolute grounding for fundamental beliefs including evidence and within the everyday world cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativism are facts. It connects to this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
You have beliefs without objective evidence for what matters to you as an individual including what you believe reality really is.

 

[dad]

You obviously do need to familiarise yourself with it - you have shown appalling ignorance of the issues - and you refuse to educate yourself! The whole point of the article (and my point in general here) is that there is lots, and lots, and lots of evidence that all interlinks and confirms the same story.

Your misconceptions could be easily dispelled if you posted some point from your silly link. The fact you reverence that foolish drivel shows you would have no hope in the field of battle of a debate.

The article just covers a tiny portion of the evidence and you won't even read it!

You can't post a tiny portion of the tiny portion of evidence you think it covers. Funny, that.

Suggesting that, if we made a basic wrong assumption (that nature didn't change), then we would, entirely by chance, arrive at a totally self-consistent picture of the past, based on multiple methods across multiple disciplines, but an entirely incorrect one - is just laughable, silly, ridiculous, stupid.

No chance involved at all. You have one belief and it is in all your methods. You cannot give us an example so I can illustrate it. Time to admit defeat.

That is not a belief system of science.

One belief rules your system. Time to admit it.

That would be because science is a naturalistic methodology. How on earth would it work otherwise?

It does NOT work on origins issues. It believes and is in strong delusion.

Of course, it could detect things it couldn't explain but there's no way to know if that is something unnatural or supernatural or if we just haven't found the natural explanation yet.

Then when you get something that you actually know something about get back to us!

Why should we not ask why a god exists? This is incredible double standards. If a god (or gods) exists, it is clearly just as much of a mystery as the existence of the universe - arguably a bigger mystery.

Lots of gods exist. Ho hum. Science can't detect a one of them!! Pitiful.

That's why god is not actually any sort of explanation - it's nothing more than a just-so story.

For science, anything above it's little pay grade is not an explanation. Not my problem!

It claims some answers and provides evidence (unlike you) that you and your cult ignore and misrepresent.

Mostly makes up B.S about where we came from.

Such as? I see no evidence of any of the thousands of gods humans have believed in - where is this evidence?

Have you believed in one? If not, how would you know? If so, then you tell us!

 

[dad]

There is a big difference between prophecy and prediction.

Call it what you like, when you predict the sun and universe will go dark and all die, that is prophesy. The only thing that might make it a prediction in your mind is your belief that the future must be held to the present nature also! Religion.

Fail Level 10
Everything within science is subject to scrutiny. Nothing science has demonstrated to be true is considered "absolute truth".

False. Most things in the origins debate they cannot scrutinize, they only fantasize!

Fail Level 10
Your refusal to recognize the evidence doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

Your inability to post it means you can't.

Fail Level 10
Newton was revised by Einstein. That is just one of countless examples science does not consider any scientist as having divine revelation, but instead depends on evidence.

Who said divine!? I mentioned reverenced.

Fail Level 10
Its called "evidence" and "peer review". The outliers aren't overruled because they disagreed. They are overruled because of lack of convincing evidence. Galileo and Einstein didn't agree with the general consensus. They presented evidence to substantiate their claims.

No peer can review what time is like in deep space. They can express fishbowl opinions over tea...that is about as far as peer review goes. Nincompoops agreeing with each other in ignorance.

Fail Level 10
I have never, ever heard a scientist call for earth evacuation or visitation from extraterrestrials.

"In his later years, Hawking repeatedly warned about the dangers of humankind meeting alien civilizations. In his 2010 documentary series Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, he suggested that alien civilizations sufficiently advanced to visit Earth may be hostile.

“Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they could reach,” he said. “Who knows what the limits would be?” And in the 2016 documentary Stephen Hawking’s Favorite Places, Hawking reiterated his views: “Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well.”

Stephen Hawking's Most Provocative Moments, From Evil Aliens to Black Hole Wagers


"Hawking had some concrete goals to guide us going forward. If we’re going to make his timeline for building new civilizations before we perish, here’s what we need to do, he said:

1. Bring the cost of spaceflight down dramatically.
2. Develop new technologies to launch us farther and faster into space.
3. Discover new planets more habitable than the ones we already know about.
4. Figure out how to survive on inhospitable planets we already know about, like Mars, and planets that might support life, like Proxima b.

If these ideas sound familiar, it’s because billionaires like Elon Musk and Richard Branson, who are deeply invested in spaceflight, have been pushing them too. Some of Hawking’s fellow physicists and astronomers also agree we could use an exit strategy. And there’s now a small but growing community of aspiring space colonists prepping for life on Mars. (To be clear, Mars, for now, looks like a pretty deadly place.)"

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/20/15836426/stephen-hawking-colonize-other-planets

Fail Level 8
If (or when) we find a place or time where these laws behave differently, it would be falsified, because this is an assumption and not a dogmatic belief.

Since man has not been more than a few light seconds or minutes from earth, when you get billions of years away get back to us!

Let's see you falsify the existence of God.

Science may be unfamiliar with truth, but the truth can never be a lie.

Fail Level 3
Great question.
If we found a place or time when the natural laws did, indeed, behave differently.
In fact, now that I think about it, it is postulated by many theoretical physicists that there could be different universes where *gasp* the natural laws are not the same!!

Total fantasy. That assumes laws are random, rather than given by God.

I empathize with you because I was once as fanatical and dogmatic as you are. I was as indoctrinated as you into the belief that science (or the "origin" sciences) were evil with the goal of leading men away from God.

You were right.

Do you know why I did not, at that time, take a serious look at the evidence?

Because I was afraid to.

Fine. However I did. Good news, God was right all along and science was wrong.

 

[dad]

The reason why you should care what religious beliefs have in common is answered by you in the very statement I have quoted.

Too bad I don't care why religions do anything. There are just two religions. The truth and all other religions.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your misconceptions could be easily dispelled if you posted some point from your silly link.

You can't post a tiny portion of the tiny portion of evidence you think it covers. Funny, that.

I already did: tree rings and stalagmite data - I even pointed to the graph (figure 9). You blustered a bit, brought up the red herring of calibration (which I answered), and now you're pretending that I haven't given you any examples.

The fact you reverence that foolish drivel shows you would have no hope in the field of battle of a debate.

You imagine your empty bluster is doing well, do you?

No chance involved at all. You have one belief and it is in all your methods. You cannot give us an example so I can illustrate it. Time to admit defeat.

This is nonsense. Look, if nature was different, then tree rings might grow differently, ice core formation may be different, cosmic rays may be different, background radiation could be different, the various radioactive decay rates might be different (these are examples of how age is determined), and anything else you care to speculate may be different.

However, unless they were all different in exactly the "right" way, they wouldn't confirm each other.

The assumption (and it's you that says it's the assumption) is that nature hasn't changed - it is NOT the age of the samples (or the age of Earth).

Unless you can answer that, it's time to admit defeat - and no, saying "you have one belief and it is in all your methods", is just silly bluster to avoid the issue, or perhaps more likely, given your propensity to just rant, you haven't grasped the problem or thought about it.

One belief rules your system.

That nature created itself (which is what you said) is not a belief system of science - saying that it is is what's called "bearing false witness".

It does NOT work on origins issues. It believes and is in strong delusion.

Then when you get something that you actually know something about get back to us!

Content-free bluster to avoid the points.

Lots of gods exist. Ho hum. Science can't detect a one of them!! Pitiful.

Misrepresentation and more bluster.

For science, anything above it's little pay grade is not an explanation. Not my problem!

Mostly makes up B.S about where we came from.

More content-free bluster.

Have you believed in one? If not, how would you know? If so, then you tell us!

If you have to believe before you can see the "evidence" then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Too bad I don't care why religions do anything. There are just two religions. The truth and all other religions.

Funny, I have another version of religions. All religions are about truth, but only God knows the truth. Rather religions are about how to give subjective reasons and beliefs about that which is not subjective and is the objective reason, but no religion can do that, because all religions are subjective.
You have subjective beliefs, which, you claim, are objective. I have subjective beliefs, but I know they are subjective. To in effect to me, you claim, you are God. IFF there is an actual God, you have to hope that She doesn't judge you for claiming that you are Her.

So dad, you judge, what the truth is. I leave that to God.