Science IS religion

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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.

What makes you believe that I base my life and beliefs on science alone?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

ps - While science is often wrong, it is always "less wrong" than it was before the new discovery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Conclusions change, but they change within reason. Gravity will not be refuted causing you to float away. Neither will the theory of evolution. Both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are so well supported by evidence that there will be no changes as far as the refutation of the biblical myths go.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And yet, you do. You base your life on the fact that the chemistry in your car is understood well enough to keep your car operating. You base your life on the fact that we understand food spoilage well enough to ensure your food is safe. You base your life on the fact that we understand gravity and structural integrity well enough to build buildings and bridges that are safe.

ALL of these are based on theories that could shift tomorrow. They won't shift *enough* that the bridges will be affected, but the detailed descriptions could very well be different.

And that is the point. When science changes, it does so from a *poorer* description to a better one. The old description doesn't stop working at its level of approximation. We just find a more accurate description.

What that means is the things that have been proven to work to withing a certain level of approximation and under conditions that are understood won't have the end results change by much.

So, in going from Newtonian gravity to general relativity, we added decimal places to the accuracy, but planets still basically continued to orbit the sun in ellipses, slightly modified. In going from Darwin's original theory to the modern synthesis, we added in understanding of genetics. Later even more detail was added in that.

And it is possible, even likely, that both theories will be modified again in the future. But what will NOT happen is that we will go back to a geocentric universe, nor will we suddenly find evolution doesn't happen. We may have to modify our cosmology when more data comes in, but the conclusion that the universe is expanding and has been doing so for over 13 billion years won't be going away.

 

[dad]

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:

You do not seem to understand the dates are ALL wrong and not even close. Correcting imaginary time is foolishness.

The whole exercise is a statement of faith that there was a same nature in the past. Nothing else to it.

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.

Corrections of a small amount on big imaginary time is fairly irrelevant.

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

[/QUOTE]
Great, and if radioactive dating was used properly it would not be used at all for any time beyond when this nature existed. But science is so in the dark that they have literally no clue when to stop or start.

 

[dad]

They aren't imaginary - more bearing false witness.

They either are or are not based on a same nature in the past. If they are they are false until you prove there was such a nature.

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

False. The belief is in the data. The data is able to be viewed independent of your belief and support the past that is a matter of written record. There is no need, or indeed no reason to use your fanatical belief set on it.

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

Try to follow here, ALL the measurements involve the same nature in the past belief. ANY agreement of 'dates' is in la la land and the only place it meets other religious biased dates is in fantasy dream land.

 

[dad]

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

Easy to check. Show us an instance where your old age dates are verified?

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.

I do not strive to attain the halls of fishbowl fame. I merely point out that in origins issues, those guys were small fry. Little league. Pikers. They could not even see left field with binoculars.

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.

Yet distances are claimed, and events based on the unknown, that are evil fiction.

(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".

I believe Scripture. The world described in the past was unlike this current nature in many ways.

Now if someone claims to know different...as science no less...they better darn well be able to prove it.

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

It tells me they make the same mistake of believing in a same nature in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not seem to understand the dates are ALL wrong and not even close. Correcting imaginary time is foolishness.

The whole exercise is a statement of faith that there was a same nature in the past. Nothing else to it.



Corrections of a small amount on big imaginary time is fairly irrelevant.

Prove that the dates are imaginary.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Easy to check. Show us an instance where your old age dates are verified?

Each and every time a specimen is dated, more than one dating method is used and independently verified.

I believe Scripture. The world described in the past was unlike this current nature in many ways.

I don't believe your bible, so you will have to do better than that.

 

[dad]

Prove that the dates are imaginary.

The basis for the so called dates is a belief in a same nature past which can't be proven. They have no position from which to ask to be disproven any more than Santa does.

 

[dad]

Each and every time a specimen is dated, more than one dating method is used and independently verified.

False. There IS no dating method independent of the same nature in the past belief. Circular. If a tree is dated, it is by a belief the rings all grew in this nature...corals all grew in this nature, isotope ratios all came to exist in this nature...etc. Pure religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The basis for the so called dates is a belief in a same nature past which can't be proven. They have no position from which to ask to be disproven any more than Santa does.

There is no reason to believe anything else. You are failing at reasoning again. If you want to claim that the laws of nature were different at some time the burden of proof lies upon you. All of the evidence that we see tells us that you are wrong.

Why do you believe in a lying God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. There IS no dating method independent of the same nature in the past belief. Circular. If a tree is dated, it is by a belief the rings all grew in this nature...corals all grew in this nature, isotope ratios all came to exist in this nature...etc. Pure religion.

Once again, your claim of a change, your burden of proof. All that we can say is that there is no evidence of such a change and therefore no reason to believe in one.

And "my myth fails without my nonsense" is never a valid excuse. You need to find actual evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Right, right.... *I* am the caveman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not anyone. Only those that profess beliefs and assert things consistent with the concept of Last Thursdayism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There IS no dating method independent of the same nature in the past belief. Circular. If a tree is dated, it is by a belief the rings all grew in this nature...corals all grew in this nature, isotope ratios all came to exist in this nature...etc. Pure religion.

• Cross-cutting relationships
• Harris matrix
• Law of included fragments
• Law of superposition
• Principle of original horizontality
• Principle of lateral continuity
• Principle of faunal succession
• Melt inclusions
• Nitrogen dating
• Fluorine absorption dating
• Seriation (archaeology)
• Sequence dating (a type of seriation)
• Palynology (the study of modern-dated pollens for the relative dating of archaeological strata, also used in forensic palynology)
• Paleopalynology (also spelt "Palaeopalynology", the study of fossilized pollens for the relative dating of geological strata)
• Morphology (archaeology)
• Typology (archaeology)
• Varnish microlamination
• Vole clock
• Lead corrosion dating[2][3] (exclusively used in archaeology)
• Paleomagnetism
• Tephrochronology
• Marine isotope stages based on the oxygen isotope ratio cycle

More than one method are used in dating specimens and are used to cross-reference each other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, for the Atheist science is a religion

No. Just a method of inquiry.

even though scientists themselves know and have acknowledged how flawed and wrong science can be

Models can be wrong. Science, as a method, is extremely succesfull.

with its findings at times and how its constantly changing.

It constantly changes, because knowledge constantly improves when you gather it according to scientific principles. It's called learning and making progress.

If it weren't changing, it means that nobody was learning anything. That would mean that all research in all fields is failing and thus not yielding any results.

The fact that it's changing is a GOOD thing.
If it weren't, then we wouldn't be learning anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bingo! You cling to your same nature in the past

What evidence do you have for the alternative?

belief asking for evidence to the contrary

We are ASKING you evidence for the stuff that YOU claim about the past.
There is no evidence to suggest the past was different then the present, so why would one believe otherwise?

, but being unable to provide evidence for the belief!

Says the last thursdayist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The basis for the so called dates is a belief in a same nature past which can't be proven.

I suddenly have a mental picture of some guy in a courtroom in a paternal case, denying to be the father of some kid. The judge says "but the dna test shows that you are the biological father off this child..."
The accused replies: "Ha! But the basis for these so called DNA tests is a belief in a same nature past which can't be proven!!! Prove that DNA doesn't work differently today then it used to! You can't just assume I'm his father because TODAY dna says so!!! Prove that DNA also worked like that 5 years ago!!!"

They have no position from which to ask to be disproven any more than Santa does.

The projection would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Cross-cutting relationships
• Harris matrix
• Law of included fragments
• Law of superposition
• Principle of original horizontality
• Principle of lateral continuity
• Principle of faunal succession
• Melt inclusions
• Nitrogen dating
• Fluorine absorption dating
• Seriation (archaeology)
• Sequence dating (a type of seriation)
• Palynology (the study of modern-dated pollens for the relative dating of archaeological strata, also used in forensic palynology)
• Paleopalynology (also spelt "Palaeopalynology", the study of fossilized pollens for the relative dating of geological strata)
• Morphology (archaeology)
• Typology (archaeology)
• Varnish microlamination
• Vole clock
• Lead corrosion dating[2][3] (exclusively used in archaeology)
• Paleomagnetism
• Tephrochronology
• Marine isotope stages based on the oxygen isotope ratio cycle

More than one method are used in dating specimens and are used to cross-reference each other.

The standard refutation:

God lies with magic.

Most Christians do not believe that God lies. At least worldwide, the U.S. has a little bit of an education problem, so they do not interpret the myths of Genesis literally. Since dad debates all of the time he does not have the lack of education excuse. He truly believes that his God lies.