Science IS religion

[dad]

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.

Your opinion of God....Gong!

 

[dad]

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.

False bravado. Poor excuse for cowardly spamming.

 

[dad]

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

To caveman level fishbowl psuedo science, many things seem like magic. Not my problem.

 

[dad]

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

If that is what you want to call mother goose stories, fine.

No, actual science.

Grammar correction...NO ACTUAL SCIENCE!

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.

Calling anyone that refuses to blindly believe your last thursdayist beliefs a last thursdayist is no cover.

Wake me up when it happens.

Been trying.

 

[dad]

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.

Ok, so you have a graph of ratios of carbon 14 an C12 in trees and stalagmites it looks like going back about 40,000 imaginary years. So the issue is how much C14 and C12 was there at the onset of this nature.

The answer is science doesn't know, it assumes the ratios When we look at carbon ratios, it doesn't matter if they are in trees or shells or whatever. That is not two methods. That is using the same belief to interpret the same carbon rations in two different things.

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).

As above in the example you gave, the error is starting with a belief and using that across the board.


The reason I know where christian old agers are coming from, is because it is the same place unbelievers are coming from. They echo the party line in same state pastasism. Nothing unique there. They just insert God randomly as if their evo beliefs had some connection.
They do not believe in the bible, Noah, the flood, a real creation etc etc. Not sure why they can't just be honest about it.

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.

Well who cares what people 'imagine'?? Seriously? The issue is what is KNOWN or NOT. The beliefs used in origin sciences are not known. As for christians, (that do not believe God or His word) should we assume they think we can live 1000 years in this nature? Or do they even believe the record of life spans??

Again we see that you have no regard for the truth, if it conflicts with your beliefs.

You talk about what people imagine about nature in the past and next moment accuse actual believers of having no regard for the truth when they do not swallow blindly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion of God....Gong!

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong by gonging yourself. I can prove that your version of God does not exist. Your God is self refuting. You claim that he cannot lie and that he does lie. You can't make up your mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False bravado. Poor excuse for cowardly spamming.

Nope, projection on your part again. No one else besides you is constantly running away. If anyone is cowardly here it is you. And all you have is spam.

But just in case you are over your fear: Would you like to discuss the concept of evidence.

(I bet your running shoes are on tight and laced up)

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, so you have a graph of ratios of carbon 14 an C12 in trees and stalagmites it looks like going back about 40,000 imaginary years. So the issue is how much C14 and C12 was there at the onset of this nature.

The answer is science doesn't know, it assumes the ratios When we look at carbon ratios, it doesn't matter if they are in trees or shells or whatever. That is not two methods. That is using the same belief to interpret the same carbon rations in two different things.

You didn't pay much attention to that then - and you still don't get the problem.

The age derived from assuming the ratios is compared with the age from counting tree rings - that's two ways of estimating age. They agree within 15% so a calibration is applied to the carbon ratio - and we get a steady increase as we go back in time. Those methods are then linked to age estimates from stalagmite (that's a third way of estimating age) and we get a continuation of the increase as we go further back.

If nature was just different, rather than applying Last Thursdayism and assuming it was made to look old, there is no reason to supposed there would be any correlation at all or that we'd be able to build a consistent picture.

And again - the three methods here are just examples of all the many, many different ways we know the age of the Earth and universe.

Blathering on about science assuming that nature haven't changed, is just ignoring the evidence from the mutual confirmation of all these methods, that the assumption is correct.

This is evidence - and I'll remind you that you haven't provided the slightest suggestion of a morsel of a scintilla of evidence for your beliefs - not even a hint.

Well who cares what people 'imagine'?? Seriously? The issue is what is KNOWN or NOT.

The issue was that you accused science of having a belief system that involved the claim that nature created itself, here it is:-

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

- that is false.

 

[Earthtank]

@OP

Yes, for the Atheist science is a religion even though scientists themselves know and have acknowledged how flawed and wrong science can be with its findings at times and how its constantly changing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@OP

Yes, for the Atheist science is a religion even though scientists themselves know and have acknowledged how flawed and wrong science can be with its findings at times and how its constantly changing.

No, it is not. What makes you think that science is a religion? Ignorance of a topic does not make it a religion.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I do have a contempt for false knowledge.

You don't know the difference.

When we look at carbon ratios, it doesn't matter if they are in trees or shells or whatever.

Obviously, you have not "studied the issue in depth for years". There are reasons why we don't and can't use carbon dating for sea-dwelling creatures.
Marine reservoir effect - Wikipedia

That is using the same belief to interpret the same carbon rations in two different things.

But they don't assume the same carbon ratios in two different things (see above), neither do they assume the same carbon ratios for different points in earth's geological history.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years

Your years of study have led you astray because you are running to Hovind, Ham and Camfort to tell you what scientists say instead of asking the scientist.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Yes, for the Atheist science is a religion even though scientists themselves know and have acknowledged how flawed and wrong science can be with its findings at times and how its constantly changing.

Conclusions change with new evidence. Its the way that science is supposed to work. You state it as if it were a flaw, whereas the true flaw is clinging to a belief in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary. The flaw of clinging to a belief in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary is called dogma; and is an attribute that belongs in the theater of religion.

 

[dad]

You didn't pay much attention to that then - and you still don't get the problem.

The age derived from assuming the ratios is compared with the age from counting tree rings - that's two ways of estimating age. They agree within 15% so a calibration is applied to the carbon ratio - and we get a steady increase as we go back in time.

Your problem is that said agreement might as well be in Jack in the Beanstalk's garden. No reality to imaginary dates if they agree or not. No way to check if the imagined agreement is real. Since the so called agreement is based on one belief that is applied to the same elements (carbon ratios) we would EXPECT agreement if nature changed across the board!!! The evidence mounts!

Those methods are then linked to age estimates from stalagmite (that's a third way of estimating age) and we get a continuation of the increase as we go further back.

More present state radioactive decay dating.

If nature was just different, ... there is no reason to supposed there would be any correlation at all or that we'd be able to build a consistent picture.

Of course ratios of carbon found in different areas would all reflect changes. Likewise, if carbon was already there or ..etc.. in the former nature, cross samples from different sources would have similarities! The only issue is WHY. You claim it is because our current nature existed for a long time. That is only a belief based explanation.

And again - the three methods here are just examples of all the many, many different ways we know the age of the Earth and universe.

One method. You have no other.

This is evidence -

It is evidence...that you have a belief.

The issue was that you accused science of having a belief system that involved the claim that nature created itself, here it is:-

- that is false.

Your slowness to grasp the issues and core basis for so called dating in various areas does not mean there are not beliefs underpinning models from science. It just means it took a while to catch on.

 

[dad]

You don't know the difference.



Obviously, you have not "studied the issue in depth for years". There are reasons why we don't and can't use carbon dating for sea-dwelling creatures.
Marine reservoir effect - Wikipedia"

Correct, for sea dwelling creatures, that sort of dating, though done, is not desired.

"Shells are often sent to accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) labs for radiocarbon dating. A great proportion of shell materials sent to AMS labs for carbon 14 dating are mollusk shells.

Shells are not easy to radiocarbon date; there are many factors that contribute uncertainties to the results. American physical chemist Willard Libby, a pioneer of the radiocarbon dating technology, predicted shells to be the least effective materials to radiocarbon date."

Radiocarbon Dating Shells, AMS Lab Beta Analytic

However the same nature in the past belief is used for corals and etc! They assume that growth rates and times were similar!

..One belief to bind them....

But they don't assume the same carbon ratios in two different things (see above), neither do they assume the same carbon ratios for different points in earth's geological history.

They assume the same causes for the ratios! Ha. Naturally things of different ages would not have the same ratios.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years

Your years of study have led you astray because you are running to Hovind, Ham and Camfort to tell you what scientists say instead of asking the scientist.

False.

Scientists in origin fields are like religious people memorizing doctrines and getting well versed in them.

Ham and others make the same mistake science does by the way. They just try to tweak the same state past belief to fit the bible.

They are correct that it is a young earth and that science is wrong, they just have no clue why.

 

[dad]

The flaw of clinging to a belief in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary is called dogma; and is an attribute that belongs in the theater of religion.

Bingo! You cling to your same nature in the past belief asking for evidence to the contrary, but being unable to provide evidence for the belief!

 

[ratiocinator]

Your problem is that said agreement might as well be in Jack in the Beanstalk's garden.

Content-free bluster.

No reality to imaginary dates if they agree or not.

They aren't imaginary - more bearing false witness.

No way to check if the imagined agreement is real.

Untrue - the agreement is not imagined, it's in the data.

Since the so called agreement is based on one belief that is applied to the same elements (carbon ratios) we would EXPECT agreement if nature changed across the board!!!

Nonsense - you aren't even trying to follow this, are you? All the age measurements aren't about carbon ratios.

Anyway - it's obviously utterly pointless giving you evidence and reasoning because you take no notice and just post falsehoods (deliberately or through simply not paying attention or thinking, I can't say) and empty bluster.

Asking you to produce any reason at all to accept your fantastical beliefs is equally futile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, for sea dwelling creatures, that sort of dating, though done, is not desired.

"Shells are often sent to accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) labs for radiocarbon dating. A great proportion of shell materials sent to AMS labs for carbon 14 dating are mollusk shells.

Shells are not easy to radiocarbon date; there are many factors that contribute uncertainties to the results. American physical chemist Willard Libby, a pioneer of the radiocarbon dating technology, predicted shells to be the least effective materials to radiocarbon date."

Radiocarbon Dating Shells, AMS Lab Beta Analytic

However the same nature in the past belief is used for corals and etc! They assume that growth rates and times were similar!

..One belief to bind them....




They assume the same causes for the ratios! Ha. Naturally things of different ages would not have the same ratios.

False.

Scientists in origin fields are like religious people memorizing doctrines and getting well versed in them.

Ham and others make the same mistake science does by the way. They just try to tweak the same state past belief to fit the bible.

They are correct that it is a young earth and that science is wrong, they just have no clue why.

You don't seem to understand your source. It tells you that corals will give a date of at least 200 to 500 years due to the reservoir effect. What that means is that without the correction the date will be at least 200 to 500 years older than the actual date. A correction can be made, but young shells or corals will still have a rather large error factor making the dating of limited value. For older samples the problem lessens with age. A 20,000 year old shell is apt to be very close to that age:

"Localized Reservoir Correction (Delta±R)
The Delta±R value is only used for marine carbonates.

Depending on the age of the marine carbonate, a 200- to 500-year correction (i.e. global marine reservoir correction) is applied automatically for all marine carbonates. This automatic correction means the radiocarbon date gets more recent in time due to the fact that it takes 200-500 years for present-day carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be incorporated and distributed (equilibrated) through the ocean water column.

A Delta±R correction is applied to the sample that has already been corrected with the global marine reservoir correction. The value that is provided by the client is subtracted or added to this already corrected age (depending if it is a Delta+R or Delta–R value). Note: A negative Delta-R will make the date older (typically presuming freshwater dilution from the global marine average).

Sample reports showing the difference between a radiocarbon date of 1000 +/-30 BP with and without a Delta±R correction is found here."

Part of using a tool properly is knowing what other factors can affect the answer it gives you and properly correcting for those problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bingo! You cling to your same nature in the past belief asking for evidence to the contrary, but being unable to provide evidence for the belief!

Wow! dad finally realizes that all he has is dogma. Truly amazing. Oh wait, my bad. he is still projecting his errors onto others. Never mind.

 

[Earthtank]

Conclusions change with new evidence. Its the way that science is supposed to work. You state it as if it were a flaw, whereas the true flaw is clinging to a belief in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary. The flaw of clinging to a belief in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary is called dogma; and is an attribute that belongs in the theater of religion.

I think you might have misunderstood me, I agree with "Conclusions change with new evidence" that's why you can't live or base your life and beliefs on science as what you believe today can be wrong tomorrow.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No reality to imaginary dates if they agree or not. No way to check if the imagined agreement is real.

If you have studied the topic for years, as you claim that you have, then you would know how fallacious this statement is.

One method. You have no other.

If you have studied the topic for years, as you claim that you have, then you would know how fallacious this statement is.

Scientists in origin fields are like religious people memorizing doctrines and getting well versed in them.

If you have studied the topic for years, as you claim that you have, then you would know how fallacious this statement is.

They are correct that it is a young earth and that science is wrong, they just have no clue why.

I am here standing in the midst of the greatest scientific mind of the 21st century! You should write a paper! Become a household name like Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Hippocrates! Oh, wait. You have no qualitative data or observation or experiment to offer as evidence? Oh. That's why it's empty supposition.

Bingo! You cling to your same nature in the past belief asking for evidence to the contrary, but being unable to provide evidence for the belief!

It is an assumption. Not a belief. *sigh* How often does this have to be pointed out to you? If science were to discover that time or place where there is a different "nature", the assumption will change and science will be overjoyed to experience new knowledge. Science openly admits that there is no way to truly validate this in every corner of the universe. (Doesn't sound like "belief" to me). Meanwhile, your insistence that there was a "different natural state", you emphatically regurgitate as irrefutable fact. That constitutes "belief".

They are correct that it is a young earth and that science is wrong, they just have no clue why.

You mean that not even the "leaders" of Creationism agree with you? Now, that should tell you something ....