Why do science hide the truth?

[Faithofchristian]

What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. But I do stay for an answer. I think I can handle the truth as well as any creationist, that's for sure.

Yes of course there are limits to what science can discover. That's because science is based on observation of nature in order to build predictive models to account for what is observed. As there are limits to what can be observed, there are obviously going to be limits to the models of nature that can be built. That's the normal state of affairs and science is quite relaxed about it.

It only looks like a problem if a person wants to pretend that science is omniscient. But only people who don't know any science think like that.

Nope not by all means.
As you showed yourself that scientist say the universe came into existence 1.4 billions of years ago.

Now have those scientist of yours explain exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago. Can they do that, hardly at all because they are limited in their understanding and knowledge of how things were back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

 

[james blunt]

I dont say science always hide truth
But why do science sometimes not tell the full story?

There is an obvious reason for this , science is incomplete so in essence , they don't have the full story to tell !

Science theory is not 100% fact although there are some axioms in science .

 

[Subduction Zone]

It really shows, how it really bothers you knowing that scientist are limited in their understanding of and knowledge how things were all those trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.

Unto which the bible/ scriptures for tells what happened all those years ago

This is rather hypocritical since your understanding is far more limited.

Please look up the age of the universe too.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope not by all means.
As you showed yourself that scientist say the universe came into existence 1.4 billions of years ago.

Noe have those scientist of your explain exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago. Can they do that, hardly at all because they are limited in their understanding of and knowledge of how things were back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

Why do you think that time extends back trillion and trillions of years? Remember that time is part of the universe: time began when the universe did.

/E: And it's 13.7 billion, not 1.4 billion. The Earth is about 4.5 billion.

 

[exchemist]

Nope not by all means.
As you showed yourself that scientist say the universe came into existence 1.4 billions of years ago.

Noe have those scientist of your explain exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago. Can they do that, hardly at all because they are limited in their understanding of and knowledge of how things were back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

See replies from others...

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why do you think that time extends back trillion and trillions of years? Remember that time is part of the universe: time began when the universe did.

As I didn't make no mentioning of time, only that scientist are limited in their understanding and knowledge of what exactly happened trillions and trillions of years ago.

 

[Faithofchristian]

See replies from others...

Their replies are no different than yours. That can not exolexp exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

 

[Polymath257]

Has I didn't make no mentioning of time, only that scientist are limited in their understanding and knowledge of what exactly happened trillions and trillions of years ago.

When you ask about trillions of years ago, you are suggesting there was *time* of that duration. You have to believe there *was* a time trillions and trillions of years ago.

And that is a point of issue. it is quite possible that there is simply nothing 'before' our universe because time only makes sense within our universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Has I didn't make no mentioning of time...

Err, yes you did.

...only that scientist are limited in their understanding and knowledge of what exactly happened trillions and trillions of years ago.

There you go again - and making the same assumption. Why do you think "trillions and trillions of years" refers to a real time?

And, as has been said, some story about a god explains exactly nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Their replies are no different than yours. That can not exolexp exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

Why do you think there *was* anything that 'happened' trillions and trillions of years ago? Give evidence that *anything* existed that long ago--even time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope not by all means.
As you showed yourself that scientist say the universe came into existence 1.4 billions of years ago.

Noe have those scientist of your explain exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago. Can they do that, hardly at all because they are limited in their understanding of and knowledge of how things were back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

The obvious limits of objectively verifiable evidence for science is ~14.5 billions of years of the history of our universe. This is when time and space for our universe began with the expansion of the universe.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Err, yes you did.



There you go again - and making the same assumption. Why do you think "trillions and trillions of years" refers to a real time?

And, as has been said, so story about a god explains exactly nothing.

As I didn't make no mentioning of time, so where you come up with time at

 

[shunyadragon]

Has I didn't make no mentioning of time, only that scientist are limited in their understanding and knowledge of what exactly happened trillions and trillions of years ago.

This remains foolish nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

As I didn't make no mentioning of time, so where you come up with time at

You mentioned 'trillions and trillions of years ago'. That involves *time*---years.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I didn't make no mentioning of time...

Eh? "trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago" is a "mentioning of time"...

 

[Faithofchristian]

The obvious limits of objectively verifiable evidence for science is ~14.5 billions of years of the history of our universe. This is when time and space for our universe began with the expansion of the universe.

That only shows that scientist are limited in their understanding and knowledge of what exactly happened back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.

Would you like to explain exactly what exactly happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.
Can you do that

 

[Polymath257]

That only shows that scientist are limited in their understanding of and knowledge of what exactly happened back trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.

Would you like to explain exactly what exactly happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago.
Can you do that

Why do you think there *was* a 'trillions and trillions of years ago' to explain?

 

[exchemist]

Their replies are no different than yours. That can not exolexp exactly what happened trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago

exolexp?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You know what, I find it awful amazing how people will come up with things. But show their lack of understanding and knowledge to explain exactly what happened all those trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago what exactly happened back there.

 

[exchemist]

Eh? "trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago" is a "mentioning of time"...

But then, he said he didn't make no mentioning [sic] of time.