Science IS religion

[gnostic]

So when He met Moses on the mountain that was a parable for kids?

Sounds more like fairytale.

 

[dad]

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

Since science the one making this claim then you are the one who need to provide evidences that no changes have taken place.
Otherwise your claims are just speculative and baseless. Every request 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.

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.

70 million years ago according to so called science. 4400 actual years.
Support your claims of a same state past, or they remain religion.

 

[gnostic]

Since science the one making this claim then you are the one who need to provide evidences that no changes have taken place.

No it is the other way around.

You are the one make the claim, that it was different, different law of nature in the past, then it is today, then you are the one who who has to provide the evidences.

The person who write up a new hypothesis must also be the one to test his hypothesis, whether it to find and gather evidences, or to test the hypothesis in the labs with experiments.

That’s how the scientific method work - formulate the hypothesis then test it.

Since you are claiming the modern world has different law of nature to what happen 4000, 6000 or 10,000 years ago, then you as a claimant must either provide evidences to back up your claims, or showed scientific references that back up you claim.

You really are truly ignorant and dishonest.

 

[dad]

No it is the other way around.

You are the one make the claim, that it was different, different law of nature in the past, then it is today, then you are the one who who has to provide the evidences.

The person who write up a new hypothesis must also be the one to test his hypothesis, whether it to find and gather evidences, or to test the hypothesis in the labs with experiments.

That’s how the scientific method work - formulate the hypothesis then test it.

Since you are claiming the modern world has different law of nature to what happen 4000, 6000 or 10,000 years ago, then you as a claimant must either provide evidences to back up your claims, or showed scientific references that back up you claim.

You really are truly ignorant and dishonest.

False accusations repeated even though you were shown the truth. My claim is that science doesn't know. So when they use a certain state in modeling the past they do it by faith alone. Your one trick pony is to try to avoid proving or supporting that scientific principle of uniformity used in models. Might as well get used to the fact that there is no way you are squirming out of it.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

You've already had examples, and what's the point anyway? All you ever do is post empty bluster, your pointless mantra about how they all assume a constant past, together with shameless falsehoods about how the only match is in people's heads. What you find too difficult you simply ignore.

You can't convince somebody who is determined to use a "Last Thursdayism" argument (even when they won't admit that that is what they are doing) because it's basically unfalsifiable.

The thing is, science in general is only interested in finding out the age of things, they don't care what the answer is. Why would scientists care if the earth really was 6000 years old? It is you, and others that want to cling to myths, that are so determined to twist everything until it matches what you desperately want to be true.

You clearly didn't arrive at your position using evidence and reasoning (as seen by your total failure to post any of either), so I see little hope of you ever taking any notice of them. What you have done, however, is provide a perfect illustration of how science and religion differ: evidence and reasoning as opposed to blind faith and bluster.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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

Dating Techniques In Archaeology

 

[dad]

You've already had examples,

Not of where dates meet specifically, and how it can be confirmed independent of the same nature in the past belief.

The thing is, science in general is only interested in finding out the age of things, they don't care what the answer is.

If that were true they would include historical records rather than denying it all, and use objective basis for models rather than always belief based ones!

They are fanatically biased to the core, and specialize in avoiding truth rather than finding it. Any claims to the contrary are hypocritical posturing and pretense and the evidence of how they work overwhelmingly outweighs the talk.

Why would scientists care if the earth really was 6000 years old?

God question, but since they go to such incredible lengths to avoid this, they do care!

Science is not impartial, it is a religion bent and hellbound on imposing it's belief system to get evil results.

That is why a same state past cannot be proven.

 

[dad]

Dating Techniques In Archaeology

As your site admits same nature belief basis in Radiocarbon dating is used for dating.

It mentions Stratigraphic dating but no details as to how this is used in conjunction with decay dating. Basically it is circular!

 

[ratiocinator]

If that were true they would include historical records rather than denying it all, and use objective basis for models rather than always belief based ones!

This is nonsense - they do use historical records and they do use objective models. Where is your evidence for anything else?

They are fanatically biased to the core, and specialize in avoiding truth rather than finding it. Any claims to the contrary are hypocritical posturing and pretense and the evidence of how they work overwhelmingly outweighs the talk.

God question, but since they go to such incredible lengths to avoid this, they do care!

Science is not impartial, it is a religion bent and hellbound on imposing it's belief system to get evil results.

That is why a same state past cannot be proven.

A lot of bluster and lost of evidence- and reasoning-free claims; where is your evidence?

 

[dad]

This is nonsense - they do use historical records and they do use objective models. Where is your evidence for anything else?

They do not use spirits in history living here, they wave that away. They do not use the long life spans recorded...waved away. They may use some bogus date for an actual king, but not objectively, only in connection to religious dating methods!


It is strange that the signature trademark of Satan in the bible is that he wanted to be worshiped above God, ascend to the heaven of heavens. Science seeks to claim that the creation by God never happened, and wants their fables worshiped/exalted by force of law! That tells us the spirit behind science.

 

[ratiocinator]

They do not use spirits in history living here, they wave that away. They do not use the long life spans recorded...waved away.

That isn't history, it's religious myth. Where is the objective evidence for these things?

It is strange that the signature trademark of Satan in the bible is that he wanted to be worshiped above God, ascend to the heaven of heavens.

Where is the objective evidence for the existence of this god of yours, or Satan. You complained that science wasn't using an objective basis - where is your objective basis?

Science seeks to claim that the creation by God never happened...

No, it doesn't. There is solid evidence that your literal fairytale version of creation didn't happen (unless your god lies) but science simply does not address creation by any gods in general.

 

[dad]

That isn't history, it's religious myth. Where is the objective evidence for these things?

History is not about objective evidence today. The record is the record. Objective evidence is needed to wave it away, or declare history as scientific evidence. But one cannot deny spirits living with men on earth, and very very long lifespans are past of that ancient record.

Where is the objective evidence for the existence of this god of yours, or Satan. You complained that science wasn't using an objective basis - where is your objective basis?

Definition of objective
a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

History is not existing, it existed! History is not perceptible to us now, except in the records. Calling for objective evidence away from the time that now exists is insane.

No, it doesn't. There is solid evidence that your literal fairytale version of creation didn't happen

Except that there is none at all and you post none. Funny that.

(unless your god lies) but science simply does not address creation by any gods in general.

Correct, in fact it addresses creation as if it were not created only! That is also called religious fanaticism, narrow mindedness, and willingly ignorant.

 

[ratiocinator]

History is not about objective evidence today. The record is the record. Objective evidence is needed to wave it away, or declare history as scientific evidence. But one cannot deny spirits living with men on earth, and very very long lifespans are past of that ancient record.

History is not existing, it existed! History is not perceptible to us now, except in the records. Calling for objective evidence away from the time that now exists is insane.

Are you even serious? You are trying to claim that your favourite book of religious myths doesn't need evidence? After your endless demands for objective evidence for science that you then ignored.

Matthew 7:5

Except that there is none at all and you post none.

Exodus 20:16

Sorry dad, but I just can't take you seriously any more. You're just too comical.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry dad, but I just can't take you seriously any more. You're just too comical.

I would use “pathetically ignorant” to describe his way of thinking.

 

[dad]

Are you even serious? You are trying to claim that your favourite book of religious myths doesn't need evidence? After your endless demands for objective evidence for science that you then ignored.

Matthew 7:5



Exodus 20:16

Sorry dad, but I just can't take you seriously any more. You're just too comical.

Spiritual and historical things need spiritual and historical evidences. Science needs physical evidences. Work on that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Spiritual and historical things need spiritual and historical evidences. Science needs physical evidences. Work on that.

What on earth do you think "spiritual evidence" is? In what way is it in any way objective?

Historical evidence supports some of scripture but not any of the magical storytelling that you want to take literally. You have no evidence for the magic garden with the talking snake, no evidence for the flood (in fact evidence against it), no evidence for longer lives and a different nature.

A collection of myths put together by a particular religion, for its own purposes, is not evidence of anything apart from said religion's beliefs at the time.

It is comical to try to put that up against solid scientific evidence.

 

[dad]

What on earth do you think "spiritual evidence" is? In what way is it in any way objective?

Records and experiences and observations of things of a spiritual nature, that have been repeated over all ages.

Historical evidence supports some of scripture but not any of the magical storytelling that you want to take literally.

History doesn't go that far back. The real ancient stuff does correlate with aspects of the bible.

You have no evidence for the magic garden with the talking snake, no evidence for the flood (in fact evidence against it), no evidence for longer lives and a different nature.

Speak for yourself. Science has none for or against. Christians accept the evidences Jesus gave that confirmed the bible.

It is comical to try to put that up against solid scientific evidence.

It is comical to pretend origin sciences has any evidence. It is 100% belief based. Not 99%...100!

 

[ratiocinator]

Records and experiences and observations of things of a spiritual nature, that have been repeated over all ages.

Meaningless - where's your objective evidence?

Science has none for or against.

It is comical to pretend origin sciences has any evidence. It is 100% belief based. Not 99%...100!

Exodus 20:16

Christians accept the evidences Jesus gave that confirmed the bible.

But only some Christians deny science, like you do.

 

[Polymath257]

False accusations repeated even though you were shown the truth. My claim is that science doesn't know. So when they use a certain state in modeling the past they do it by faith alone. Your one trick pony is to try to avoid proving or supporting that scientific principle of uniformity used in models. Might as well get used to the fact that there is no way you are squirming out of it.

And if a model fits all available evidence, is minimal in extra assumptions, and is able to predict the results of new observations, THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.

The problem with last thursdayism is that it doesn't have minimal assumptions that are testable via new observations.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

And just because ancient mystics conjured up tall tales and wrote them on scrolls does not mean that what they wrote is reality-based.