Science IS religion

[dad]

"god" isn't any more the "null hypothesis" for anything then undetactable pink graviton pixies are the null hypothesis for gravity.

To you, maybe not. Your belief set regarding origins, however is ignorant of what nature existed in the past so is not equipped to deal in the issues. So you either keep ignorance as your default, or look for something above the paygrade of science that does cover the issues.

Falsifiability and testability is requirement number one for any scientific hypothesis.

Neither of which apply to the basis used in origin sciences, of assuming nature was the same. No tests exists for that, nor can the belief be falsified by science.

 

[sooda]

To you, maybe not. Your belief set regarding origins, however is ignorant of what nature existed in the past so is not equipped to deal in the issues. So you either keep ignorance as your default, or look for something above the paygrade of science that does cover the issues.


Neither of which apply to the basis used in origin sciences, of assuming nature was the same. No tests exists for that, nor can the belief be falsified by science.

Which laws of nature do you think changed? Gravity or the seasons or the orbit of the earth? Which exactly?

 

[dad]

So instead of denying evolution, you actually believe in a HYPER evolution ON STEROIDS within which upto 20 speciation events per day had to occur till today.

You're a weird guy.

Not sure which crevice you pulled that number out of. However, looking at tigers, I think there are over 30 species today. Let's say one was the origiginal kind on the ark. So in the 11 decades or whatever it was after the flood and before the nature change, we would have probably seen tigers adapt into what are some what are called species today. That is roughly(if we add a few more like the saber toothed tiger) an average of, say, about 3 per decade. In the case of elephants there are many less species. So your 20 a day nonsense is foolishness of course.

 

[dad]

If you assume that DNA worked the same yesterday as it does today, then the data we observe today makes sense.

If you assume that DNA did not work the same yesterday as it does today, then the data we observe today also makes sense. So!!??

If you assume that DNA worked differently, no data makes any sense.

Example? Try to remember that we HAVE no DNA from ancient times that is usable to determine any genomes, or etc that I have heard about.
Ha

 

[sooda]

Not sure which crevice you pulled that number out of. However, looking at tigers, I think there are over 30 species today. Let's say one was the origiginal kind on the ark. So in the 11 decades or whatever it was after the flood and before the nature change, we would have probably seen tigers adapt into what are some what are called species today. That is roughly(if we add a few more like the saber toothed tiger) an average of, say, about 3 per decade. In the case of elephants there are many less species. So your 20 a day nonsense is foolishness of course.

You actually believe there was an Ark???? A children's story?

 

[dad]

What "former nature"?

What same past nature??


History does not record any such thing you made it up wholesale.

 

[dad]

More hand-waving and waffle. The point of the matter is that any individual piece of evidence can be dismissed if invoke hand-waveing, waffle and god-magic to change nature - but when we have multiple different lines of evidence, from completely unrelated physical systems, all telling us the same story of the past, then it's either accurate or has been made to look like that (last Thursdayism, trickster god).

All 'dates' where evidences that were belief based meet can be dismissed as fantasy. There is no real meeting. The actual dates are young, the so called (belief based) meeting of old age dates is pi in the sky. Only in an inward, circular, fantasy land do old age dates meet.

So you had to copy and paste the hand-waving waffle on this occasion. I note that a whole lot of words are taken up with distraction. How complex the system is and the fact that it's all electrical signals is irrelevant and looks like it's there just to distract the reader from the fact that they have no credible alternative explanation for the observations.

Your only supposed credible explanation is that a samenatureinthepast dunnit.

Even if the genes actually serve some function after all, it doesn't make the evidence for common decent go away.

What in your mind is this evidence that you think exists and won't go way?

No, the issue is that, if lost of different ways of measuring age agree, there needs to be an explanation for that agreement.

The explanation is obvious and simple. When you splatter same nature in the past beliefs all over evidences they will all have the smell or color or tainted similarities that result.
If you look at ratios of isotopes, and determine 'age' by the current decay rate, that 'age' is obviously only good as long as the present nature along with it's decay existed! If you use that to date things, such as when a crater formed, then that is a total belief based endeavor. Now, if you look at present evolving and imagine how long a lot of evolving would/could/should take if nature always was the same as now, you might get a similar imaginary time for both. That does not confirm the age is real. That just confirms that the same belief was used on different things. You cannot verify the age claimed with anything at all that is not also based on the same belief.

 

[dad]

You actually believe there was an Ark???? A children's story?

Jesus did. The apostles and prophets did. Why would I not? Science doesn't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus did. The apostles and prophets did. Why would I not? Science doesn't know.

So you are claiming that Jesus was just a man. I think that I can agree with you on that.

 

[dad]

Which laws of nature do you think changed? Gravity or the seasons or the orbit of the earth? Which exactly?

It is not so much that our nature, or forces and laws of nature changed. It would be that a former nature we do not know changed, and left our nature. So since the former nature is not known now, why speculate on various specific forces? Perhaps there were also other forces and laws that we n longer have. So we would not be looking only at the present forces and nature, to see what changed, we also need to consider the nature that was here. If there were some force or law at the time that worked with gravity, and possibly somehow mitigated it's effects to some extent, or at some times, then it would not be gravity itself that changed, for example. But since we do not know what causes the forces such as the nuclear forces, to exist and work like they do, how would science be expected to know how it all used to work?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no real meeting.

Untrue - more false witness.

Your only supposed credible explanation is that a samenatureinthepast dunnit.

Content-free bluster.

What in your mind is this evidence that you think exists and won't go way?

The same evidence your copy and paste job was trying to explain away. At least whoever wrote it was just about intelligent enough to understand that they had something to explain.

The explanation is obvious and simple. When you splatter same nature in the past beliefs all over evidences they will all have the smell or color or tainted similarities that result.

Bluster and ignoring the problem again.

That does not confirm the age is real. That just confirms that the same belief was used on different things. You cannot verify the age claimed with anything at all that is not also based on the same belief.

Still ignoring the problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not sure which crevice you pulled that number out of. However, looking at tigers, I think there are over 30 species today. Let's say one was the origiginal kind on the ark. So in the 11 decades or whatever it was after the flood and before the nature change, we would have probably seen tigers adapt into what are some what are called species today. That is roughly(if we add a few more like the saber toothed tiger) an average of, say, about 3 per decade. In the case of elephants there are many less species. So your 20 a day nonsense is foolishness of course.

The joke actually is that, whatever number you think would be required in order to bash the square peg of evidence into the round hole of your fairytale with the magic boat, you'd have been just as convinced, wouldn't you?

You will make your god as much of a liar in nature as is needed to make a literal interpretation of your favourite storybook true in your own mind. You pointlessly demand evidence for the scientific view, knowing full well that you can twist anything with your endlessly flexible hand-waving god-magic.

At the same time, you offer not a single hint of a morsel of solid evidence for your own beliefs - nothing at all but your own blind faith.

 

[sooda]

Jesus did. The apostles and prophets did. Why would I not? Science doesn't know.

Jesus taught in parables. Underneath the children's story is a message. Perhaps you should consider that. The Jews were not stupid people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus taught in parables. Underneath the children's story is a message. Perhaps you should consider that. The Jews were not stupid people.

So dad might be wrong about the divinity of Jesus

 

[sooda]

So dad might be wrong about the divinity of Jesus

I have no idea. I am surprised a grown man is talking about how the bloody ark was seaworthy.

 

[dad]

Untrue - more false witness.

I had asked someone for an example of where the dates met. Let's see what you got.

 

[dad]

The joke actually is that, whatever number you think would be required in order to bash the square peg of evidence into the round hole of your fairytale with the magic boat, you'd have been just as convinced, wouldn't you?

Well, the numbers we need to look at are the dates you cite based on applying your baseless beliefs to separate items! We wait for the example.

 

[dad]

Jesus taught in parables. Underneath the children's story is a message. Perhaps you should consider that. The Jews were not stupid people.

So when He met Moses on the mountain that was a parable for kids? When He mentioned the flood that was for kids? When He mentioned the first man and the beginning, that was some pretend story for kids? Paaaleeeese.

 

[gnostic]

It is not so much that our nature, or forces and laws of nature changed. It would be that a former nature we do not know changed, and left our nature. So since the former nature is not known now, why speculate on various specific forces? Perhaps there were also other forces and laws that we n longer have. So we would not be looking only at the present forces and nature, to see what changed, we also need to consider the nature that was here. If there were some force or law at the time that worked with gravity, and possibly somehow mitigated it's effects to some extent, or at some times, then it would not be gravity itself that changed, for example. But since we do not know what causes the forces such as the nuclear forces, to exist and work like they do, how would science be expected to know how it all used to work?

Since you are the one making this claim then you are the one who need to provide evidences that such changes have taken place.

Otherwise your claims are just speculative and baseless.

These claims nature and physics are very different in a mere 4000 years, you have not presented a single evidence to back up your claim.

Every requests for evidences have been either been ignored, dismissed or dodged. This not only demonstrated that you have no evidences to support your baseless opinions, you are also pretty much very dishonest to everyone and to yourself.

Pretty much you don’t follow one of the Ten Commandments - of not bearing false witness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So when He met Moses on the mountain that was a parable for kids? When He mentioned the flood that was for kids? When He mentioned the first man and the beginning, that was some pretend story for kids? Paaaleeeese.

You have two coices, either Use was using parables or he was not divine.?
Right no you are claiming that Jesus was just a man.