LittleNipper wrote:I believe that science is a good thing when it sticks to the observable and repeatable. The problem comes when "science" is applied in ignorance of GOD to enhance secular thought by people with a vendetta against the supernatural.
Little Nipper, I am trying to find the way to ask this question. Perhaps this, I am wondering if your car disappeared one day and a week later some fellow was stopped by the police for running stop sign in Omaha and was found to be driving the vehicle which used to be yours would you try to claim it? Would you expect him to be convicted of a crime? After all nobody saw him steal anything. We cannot repeat the theft in court. Does that leave no scientific evidence of the action or is it possible to decipher the past from the remains left in the present ?
There are many problems in your statement. First of all the car was observed in real time and documents exist showing ownership. There is a trail of real time events observed by those who took part in the record. The owner has directly observed his car and many other people as well. Then on top of this you confuse law with trace evidence of the past where there are no first hand witnesses or observation. In a trial a legal record must be provided to show a crime was committed. This is apples and oranges. You may have to provide a better example to make your point.
Franktalk wrote:So when I say science is a belief system I mean that those things not directly observed are believed and can not be proven.
If things not directly observed are believed, then it's religion, not science.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The further an object is away from us the further back in time we are seeing it. IE; We can't directly observe the sun. We see it as it was about 8 minutes ago.
Dr. Shades wrote:If things not directly observed are believed, then it's religion, not science.
It is both science and religion. Religion says believe this because some ancient guy said so. Science says believe this because we found some stuff and made up a story about it.
Incorrect. Religion may be based on something some ancient guy said, but not necessarily. Science is based on what can be observed and tested right now. Currently there is no scientific test for religion.
Dr. Shades wrote:If things not directly observed are believed, then it's religion, not science.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The further an object is away from us the further back in time we are seeing it. IE; We can't directly observe the sun. We see it as it was about 8 minutes ago.
I see, so if I look at the sun and then wait 8 minutes have I directly observed the sun? Your playing around with words is pretty silly. Using your logic we can not observe anything because the speed of light is not infinite. Might want to rethink this one.
Franktalk wrote:It is both science and religion. Religion says believe this because some ancient guy said so. Science says believe this because we found some stuff and made up a story about it.
Incorrect. Religion may be based on something some ancient guy said, but not necessarily. Science is based on what can be observed and tested right now. Currently there is no scientific test for religion.
In my second sentence "this" refers to the body of beliefs of religion. In my third sentence "this" refers to the body of beliefs of science. I thought that was pretty obvious. But I guess not for some.
Maksutov wrote:They have reasons for what they say. If you ask, they will provide you with more information. When you're asked about your assertions, you handwave, obfuscate and/or pout. Guess who gets more credibility?
So you think that Ancient Aliens are plausible, along with the hollow earth. But scientists are full of crap. That's great, Frank. You should go on the Art Bell show. At least be on Alex Jones. Tell us about HAARP and mind control while you're at it. Hey, what about the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati?
Your tiny flimsy strawmen don't convince anybody.
Good points. When geologists, for example, see features in the geologic record that are identical to what a reasonable person would expect to see if known, observable and carefully measured presently occurring processes had continued for millions or billions of years, there is absolutely no reasonable excuse for inventing some fanciful and miraculous explanations for how they could have been created in the short time frame insisted upon by fundamentalist, religious fanatics.
What you say about geology is mostly correct today but in the recent past it was not true. Bretz made a theory about an ancient flood flowing through Washington State. His work was rejected because it did not fit the model of uniformitarianism. In time the leaders in geology died off and more open minded people became leaders in the field. So Bretz had his theory accepted. It just took around 40 years.
Dr. Shades wrote:If things not directly observed are believed, then it's religion, not science.
It is both science and religion. Religion says believe this because some ancient guy said so. Science says believe this because we found some stuff and made up a story about it.
Riiiiiiight, Frank. You come up with a strawman for religion (not all religions approach faith like Abrahamic ones) and your caricature of science just underlines your ignorance. If that's as far as you understand science, you don't understand it at all. That's one of the reasons you parade absurdities like hollow earths and ancient aliens and who knows what. Your gross distortions are either ignorant, malicious or both. In any event, they're as fictitious as the doctrines and "beliefs" that you're spraying out there without evidence or coherence. You're self-refuting, dude. Keep it up. Let's see how far you'll go down the rabbit hole.
Maksutov wrote: You're self-refuting, dude. Keep it up. Let's see how far you'll go down the rabbit hole.
If I am self-refuting as you say then why comment at all? Why not spend your time tearing down religious institutions. You must realize that most of the world believes in an all powerful God who treats humans like ants in an ant farm. I think you take joy in acting all superior on these boards. A main course for an ego boost. But if it brings you joy then who am I to interfere.
Truth is established with evidence, not by stomping your feet.
ERVs are a part of nature. How do they reveal god? Oh that's right, they are factual evidence that denies god. At least the version that you believe in.
Religion cannot deny the obvious and yet is being applied to try to do just that. (fixed it for you)
If one does evil, is he ultimately rewarded with good? If one does good, is he rewarded with evil? These are laws of nature that you cannot change and yet some act as though they don't exist.
Of course you have the advantage here of being able to simply invent periods of existence beyond the grave and then assert that the ledger books are balanced there.
Quite the contrary, I see generally that righteous people have relatively long, joyous lives ----while people living selfishly usually have shorter lives full of turmoil and feelings of insecurity.
Maksutov wrote: You're self-refuting, dude. Keep it up. Let's see how far you'll go down the rabbit hole.
If I am self-refuting as you say then why comment at all? Why not spend your time tearing down religious institutions. You must realize that most of the world believes in an all powerful God who treats humans like ants in an ant farm. I think you take joy in acting all superior on these boards. A main course for an ego boost. But if it brings you joy then who am I to interfere.
I'm not the one who claims to know more than the scientists, Frank. I'm not the one who claims to know the will of God. That's you. Talk about an ego.
Why not spend your time learning something instead of tearing down scientific institutions? You must realize that you live in First World conditions due to, not religious nuts, who abound the world over, but scientific enterprises in medicine, transportation, housing, energy, food production, etc, provide that to you. But if it brings you joy to be an ungrateful and hypocritical parasite, who am I to interfere? I won't interfere, but I will point it out.
Why comment at all? Ask yourself that.You can't explain your beliefs and what you call "defending" them is just deflections and red herrings. I think it's just so you can "act superior".
