Science IS religion

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Call it what you like, when you predict the sun and universe will go dark and all die, that is prophesy.

The prediction that the sun and universe will go dark is based on evidence and understanding how the natural world works. That's why it's called "prediction". "Prophecy" is stating that god will peel back the skies. Your indoctrinated brain can't tell the difference.

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

Laughable.

Your inability to post it means you can't.

Any evidence would be dismissed offhand. It is akin to casting pearls before swine.

"In his later years, Hawking repeatedly warned

Speculation is not calling for evacuation. Exploration and the intent to explore is not evacuation.

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

False dichotomy.

You were right.

It wasn't science that caused me to doubt and question.

 

[dad]

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.

Nope. Either God rose Jesus from the dead fulfilling Scripture and it is all true...or not. No mental anguish needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Either God rose Jesus from the dead fulfilling Scripture and it is all true...or not. No mental anguish needed.

If you want to claim that all other religions are false you put the burden of proof upon yourself.

Tell us why is your dishonest God the only God out there? And why do you believe in a God that lies?

 

[dad]

The prediction that the sun and universe will go dark is based on evidence and understanding how the natural world works.

Thanks for admitting that! Basically fishbowl projection and fishbowl prophesy.

That's why it's called "prediction". "Prophecy" is stating that god will peel back the skies. Your indoctrinated brain can't tell the difference.

Creation does not fall under your understanding of this present nature. Sorry. So by prophesying BASED on IT, that is not understanding, but misapplied mental projection. Religion.

Any evidence would be dismissed offhand. It is akin to casting pearls before swine.

No one can dismiss what you do not post and cannot post. I understand your fear of being laughed at. Avoid posting any content, evidence or substance all you like. You still get the fail, but maybe avoid the ridicule.

Speculation is not calling for evacuation. Exploration and the intent to explore is not evacuation.

Oh come on now, they are a bunch of chicken littles running around saying the universe will go dark, global warming will kill us, we will be over populated, starve, and need to flee the planet etc etc. Ridiculous.

It wasn't science that caused me to doubt and question.

Well whatever it was, let's hope you come through the storm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for admitting that! Basically fishbowl projection and fishbowl prophesy.


Creation does not fall under your understanding of this present nature. Sorry. So by prophesying BASED on IT, that is not understanding, but misapplied mental projection. Religion.

No one can dismiss what you do not post and cannot post. I understand your fear of being laughed at. Avoid posting any content, evidence or substance all you like. You still get the fail, but maybe avoid the ridicule.
Oh come on now, they are a bunch of chicken littles running around saying the universe will go dark, global warming will kill us, we will be over populated, starve, and need to flee the planet etc etc. Ridiculous.
Well whatever it was, let's hope you come through the storm.

dad, you are the one that puts yourself in a fishbowl.

This is projection on your part. It is such a pity that reality scares the pants off of you.

 

[dad]

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.

I couldn't find this graph when searching yesterday. But tree rings have no meaning unless we know what nature they were grown in.

Stalagmites involve chemical reactions so obviously that depends on what nature they form in! You assume a same nature and date old accordingly, and then cheer when imaginary old dates seem to coalesce inside your religious head.

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.

Speaking of nonsense, give an example where all these come together for dating harmony?

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

Example?

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).

Forget anyone's assumptions or beliefs, just prove your belief of a same state past! You can't, so it remains NOT science.

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".

That the so called singularity existed and that a little speck of hot plasma soup... or whatever you like to call your imaginary friend... existed and were responsible for the universe. Since then science claims the same nature or laws. That is nature basically being responsible for creation. You stand corrected and exposed as a false accuser.

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

That is why origins sciences are religion.

 

[dad]

If you want to claim that all other religions are false you put the burden of proof upon yourself.

Not negotiable. Stick to the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not negotiable. Stick to the topic.

That is part of the topic. And sorry, until you learn what science is you lose the debate by default.

Tell me why do you think that the Ostrich Defense works? Even real live ostriches are smarter than that.

 

[ratiocinator]

I couldn't find this graph when searching yesterday.

You can't of looked very hard - it's labelled "figure 9" - that's why I said it was figure 9. Do you need me to tell you how to search a web page for the text "figure 9"?

But tree rings have no meaning unless we know what nature they were grown in.

Stalagmites involve chemical reactions so obviously that depends on what nature they form in! You assume a same nature and date old accordingly, and then cheer when imaginary old dates seem to coalesce inside your religious head.

For goodness sake pay some attention! Perhaps you need to brush up on reading English for comprehension before we even get to the science. I keep on saying that I know that all our measurements depend on the same nature - that's not the point.

Speaking of nonsense, give an example where all these come together for dating harmony?

Example?

I've given you lots of examples - the details are in the article - or you could go look them up for yourself - or you could even take a moment to think about it - wouldn't that make a change? Even with your limited knowledge of science you must have grasped that the age of the Earth and universe is calculated in many different ways that that they agree - surely? Your problem is to explain why without collapsing into Last Thursdayism.

The issue seems to be that you are unable or unwilling to even see the problem.

The science is detailed, and if you won't accept simple summaries, all the details can't be spoon fed to somebody who isn't really interested on a message board - you have to take some time, be prepared to read details, and pay some attention - all things you have shown no inclination to do.

Forget anyone's assumptions or beliefs, just prove your belief of a same state past!

Forget everyone's beliefs and prove my belief - seriously? Science doesn't do proof - but the (copious) evidence is in the way all the different ways of measuring age agree with each other.

You can't, so it remains NOT science.

Asking for proof (which science never does) then claiming that I can't give proof shows that it's not science, just underlines your ignorance.

That the so called singularity existed and that a little speck of hot plasma soup... or whatever you like to call your imaginary friend... existed and were responsible for the universe. Since then science claims the same nature or laws. That is nature basically being responsible for creation. You stand corrected and exposed as a false accuser.

Wow - I'll add cosmology to the list of sciences you know nothing about. If there was a singularity (which is highly questionable), did it exist and was it obeying the laws of nature? Yes, so it wasn't nature creating itself, was it?

That is why origins sciences are religion.

Except you don't have to believe to see the evidence that science has to offer (you are bearing false witness again). You do, however, need to take your fingers out of your ears, stop stamping your little foot really, really hard, stop screaming "It's religion!, It's all assumptions!" at the top of your voice, and stop refusing to look...

 

[Polymath257]

Forget anyone's assumptions or beliefs, just prove your belief of a same state past! You can't, so it remains NOT science..

Actually, it *is* science. First, the initial proposal that the *laws* (not the state) were the same in the past is required to even discuss the past reasonably.

Second, we can model the laws changing and determine whether it fits the data better to have them constant or to have them changing in various ways. Uniformly it comes out a better match to have the laws constant. that is testability.

So, unless you have a specific proposal on *how* the laws changed, it simply isn't reasonable to delve into that possibility further. And, if your proposal has no observational differences with the current theory, it loses as having more metaphysical baggage.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well whatever it was, let's hope you come through the storm.

Thank you for your concern. I believe it to be genuine and I am genuinely touched by it, It is, however, misguided and unnecessary.. I found liberation by shedding my fear that religion instilled in me; including fear of knowledge.

No one can dismiss what you do not post and cannot post. I understand your fear of being laughed at. Avoid posting any content, evidence or substance all you like. You still get the fail, but maybe avoid the ridicule.

All the evidence you need is readily available through quick google searches or within these forums. If you reject that wealth of information that is there for you, then nothing I post will, at all, change your mind or open it.

Study or don't.
Accept or reject.
Neither decision affects the greater outcome; only your life experience.

Peace and good fortune.

 

[dad]

That is part of the topic. And sorry, until you learn what science is you lose the debate by default.

Tell me why do you think that the Ostrich Defense works? Even real live ostriches are smarter than that.

Science is belief based, that is the topic. Not your opinion of God or other beliefs or the bible.

 

[dad]

You can't of looked very hard - it's labelled "figure 9" - that's why I said it was figure 9. Do you need me to tell you how to search a web page for the text "figure 9"?

Since you can't post the link to find this figure 9, tell us about it?

I've given you lots of examples - the details are in the article - or you could go look them up for yourself - or you could even take a moment to think about it - wouldn't that make a change? Even with your limited knowledge of science you must have grasped that the age of the Earth and universe is calculated in many different ways that that they agree - surely?

One way, one belief. You use that way and that belief in many areas...any area actually that you can. Give an example of how tree rings agree exactly. We will discover that it is belief based. I can see why you can't be clear here. You do not dare.

Show the details and we shall see. Don't blame me if you spammed some half wit link hundreds of posts ago, that had some graph hidden in it somewhere that you can't repost and defend.

Science doesn't do proof - but the (copious) evidence is in the way all the different ways of measuring age agree with each other.

Belief is the only connection that makes evidences tainted and appear to agree inside your head. There is no actual agreement.

Wow - I'll add cosmology to the list of sciences you know nothing about. If there was a singularity (which is highly questionable), did it exist and was it obeying the laws of nature? Yes, so it wasn't nature creating itself, was it?

It was our nature coming to exist because of some natural event in your belief system. And no they do not claim it followed our laws as they break down before the reach the imaginary event!

 

[dad]

Actually, it *is* science. First, the initial proposal that the *laws* (not the state) were the same in the past is required to even discuss the past reasonably.

So now you demand blind faith in your belief that cannot be supported as a precondition to all reason and discussion! Absurd. You must show your belief to be fact and knowledge and evidenced first, or it cannot be used.

Second, we can model the laws changing and determine whether it fits the data better to have them constant or to have them changing in various ways. Uniformly it comes out a better match to have the laws constant. that is testability.

No. You cannot model a former nature changing! You do not even know what it was like! You could play what if and say OUR nature could not have changed. It was not our nature that changed though! You have no test for a former unknown nature...obviously.

So, unless you have a specific proposal on *how* the laws changed, it simply isn't reasonable to delve into that possibility further.

Now you claim that unless we know what the unknown former nature was like, the only reasonable belief is yours, however unsupportable it is!

Gong!

And, if your proposal has no observational differences with the current theory, it loses as having more metaphysical baggage.

My proposal is that science has no observable evidence for what it claims about the nature in the past. That cannot be observed now since we are in this present nature. All science can observe is this nature.

 

[dad]

Thank you for your concern. I believe it to be genuine and I am genuinely touched by it, It is, however, misguided and unnecessary.. I found liberation by shedding my fear that religion instilled in me; including fear of knowledge.

I have no fear of knowledge to shed. I do have a contempt for false knowledge.

All the evidence you need is readily available through quick google searches or within these forums. If you reject that wealth of information that is there for you, then nothing I post will, at all, change your mind or open it.

You are dreaming. I have researched the issues in depth for years. I know science is limited and faith based on origins issues. No googling can help you. No professor on earth. No book. No video. Your belief set is indefensible and defeated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is belief based, that is the topic. Not your opinion of God or other beliefs or the bible.

And that has been proven to be wrong. Secondly you base your false beliefs upon your book of myths so that does make the Babble part of the conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no fear of knowledge to shed. I do have a contempt for false knowledge.

You are dreaming. I have researched the issues in depth for years. I know science is limited and faith based on origins issues. No googling can help you. No professor on earth. No book. No video. Your belief set is indefensible and defeated.

dad everyone can smell the fear that you have. When you run away. When you refuse to debate rationally . You show that you have a terrible fear. People without fear can debate properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You presume a lot of things, magic being only one of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is the case for those choosing the blind alley/straight jacket

No. Instead, choosing the path of independently testable rational models of reality.

of being restricted to and limited by only pseudo science.

No, actual science.

That is not the case for open minded free thinkers.

If you are talking about yourself, then I have to say that I don't think "open minded free thinker" is a proper way to describe your last thursdayist style position.

A renesanse from so called science is dawning soon.

Uhu, uhu.

Wake me up when it happens.

 

[ratiocinator]

Since you can't post the link to find this figure 9, tell us about it?

Are you really incapable of finding figure 9 in a link (here)? Somehow, it goes with your general attitude. You obviously don't care about anything but your bind belief system, certainly not the truth of the matter, and you'll simply refuse to acknowledge any actual information that might call it into question.

One way, one belief. You use that way and that belief in many areas...

And you're still running away from the point. You have not explained how the one belief (constant nature) leads to the observations (agreement about age from different and unrelated measurements).

Don't blame me if you spammed some half wit link hundreds of posts ago...

You said you'd been accessing it the day before yesterday (#1666) and if you wanted it again, you only had to ask. How can you possibly know it's spam or half witted (nice way to talk about another Christian, BTW - perhaps you should take note of Matthew 7:5) if you haven't even read it (which is rather obvious from your posts)?

Belief is the only connection that makes evidences tainted and appear to agree inside your head. There is no actual agreement.

This is simply untrue.

It was our nature coming to exist because of some natural event in your belief system. And no they do not claim it followed our laws as they break down before the reach the imaginary event!

The inadequacy of our current theories to describe the event doesn't mean that anybody imagines that it wasn't a natural event following natural laws. Again we see that you have no regard for the truth, if it conflicts with your beliefs.

I see little point in trying to reason with you further, or trying to give you any more information when you can't be bothered to look at what I've already given you. Reason and evidence seem to mean nothing to you.