Page 22 of 31 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 464

Thread: Christians are anti-science.

  1. #316 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    When a Creationist says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, he assumes that the scientists are lying or that the Devil has been planting false evidence.
    Science is not scientists. Scientists can and do lie. Science does not. Scientists come in all religious flavors. Science is purely atheistic (it is devoid of any theism).

    The earth might very well be ~6,000 years old. Nobody can verify its true age without a time machine. Regardless, science does not speculate about the past; only humans do. Science predicts nature, i.e. future tense.

    Personally, I am a huge fan of Darwin's theory. I think the age of the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years +/- 400 million years. I think earth is a negligible speck in a massive expanding universe and that there are lots and lots of other life forms elsewhere in the universe, none having any real chance of running into any of us. All of these are my beliefs and thus my speculations. None of this is science.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    gfm7175 (09-24-2020), Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  3. #317 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Uh. No. Atheists are not theists by definition. That what the 'A' in 'atheist' means.

    However, a lot of atheists are not atheists no matter what they call themselves. They are anti god believers. That's a religion. It is theism.
    Bingo.

    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  5. #318 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,920
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,762 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,343 Times in 2,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Science is not scientists. Scientists can and do lie. Science does not. Scientists come in all religious flavors. Science is purely atheistic (it is devoid of any theism).

    The earth might very well be ~6,000 years old. Nobody can verify its true age without a time machine. Regardless, science does not speculate about the past; only humans do. Science predicts nature, i.e. future tense.

    Personally, I am a huge fan of Darwin's theory. I think the age of the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years +/- 400 million years. I think earth is a negligible speck in a massive expanding universe and that there is lots and lots of other life forms elsewhere in the universe, none of which has any real chance of running into any of us. All of these are my beliefs and thus my speculations. None of this is science.
    The fossils exist. And yes we can verify their ages using various equipment.

    And yes I think there are life forms elsewhere but it's a speculation to say they cannot reach us.

  6. #319 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    The fossils exist. And yes we can verify their ages using various equipment.
    Nope. That's the rub.

    Belief in radiometric dating requires faith. I happen to believe in radiometric dating, i.e. I am a huge fan. There is one huge problem that very few people wish to discuss which is that when radiometric dating is performed, the resulting figure really is the upper limit as to how old something can possibly be ... whereas we humans, simply out of our psychological "need to know" or to feel like we "know," simply declare that value as the actual age. The reality is that any object so measured could, in reality, be much younger. To us humans, that is a very unsatisfying thought ... so we choose instead to believe that we are reading the actual, true age and we feel so much more satisfied and we boast about the amazing truths that we "learned." Unfortunately it's merely what we are choosing to believe.

    You may already be aware of this but let give you a rundown on how radiometric dating works. Many different unstable isotopes are created all the time. They decay into "decay material" at an extremely stable rate called the "half-life" and this rate amazingly is unaffected by temperature, pressure and any other environmental factors. So far so good. If a rock R1 is created in the earth on a particular day with a quantity Q of isotope I with a half-life of 100,000 years ... and that rock is radiometrically "dated" 100,000 years later, what will happen is that the amount of I will be measured and the decay material D will be measured and will be discovered to be of equal quantities and will be declared to be 100,000 years old.

    But the day before rock R1 was "dated" a brand new rock R2 was created that day in an equivalent manner as R1 and was shot out of a volcano. Due to a bizarre set of circumstances, in the region where R2 was created there also happened to be high levels of D. In fact, R2 began its life yesterday with three times as much of the decay material as it contains of I. So the day after it comes out of the earth and is one day old, it is "dated" and declared to be 200,000 years old, twice as old as R1. It's one day old but it appears to be 200,000 years old. What do we do?

    Well, instead of disrupting society and declaring that we really don't know any of the stuff we have claimed vehemently "to know" ... we quietly decide that if there are any instances like that of R2, we just include that in our "margin of error" for our overarching "model" of speculation about the past. We go on believing the "official" timeline of events and we give ourselves order and satisfaction in our lives. We even get to go to online forums and bash people who don't accept the "official" timeline of events as being "anti-science." Isn't that great?

    Actually, it's not that great. Trust me. I used to do it and I'm not proud of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    And yes I think there are life forms elsewhere but it's a speculation to say they cannot reach us.
    I didn't make any claims about inability to reach us. I stated a negligible probability of ever reaching us. We humans will only exist for a finite amount of time. We will likely run out of resources and die out long before we achieve the means to get ourselves to some other sustainably habitable place. Other life forms are restricted to the same laws of physics that govern our lives ... and distance is distance. I'll change my tune when someone starts installing powering stations between galaxies.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    gfm7175 (09-24-2020), Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  8. #320 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,920
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,762 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,343 Times in 2,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    I didn't make any claims about inability to reach us. I stated a negligible probability of ever reaching us. We humans will only exist for a finite amount of time. We will likely run out of resources and die out long before we achieve the means to get ourselves to some other sustainably habitable place. Other life forms are restricted to the same laws of physics that govern our lives ... and distance is distance. I'll change my tune when someone starts installing powering stations between galaxies.
    You said all of your statements are speculations and I was agreeing.

    We have no idea how advanced their technologies are.

  9. #321 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,454
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 1,037 Times in 727 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 372 Times in 345 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    How do you know gods do not exist? This is your initial circular argument. All your other arguments stem from this argument. That is the very definition of a religion. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
    There is no observable phenomenon compelling us to ask if a god exists. You're not justified in asking if gods exists anymore than you are asking if "The Force" from Star Wars exists.

    And what is your definition of "god," anyway?

  10. #322 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,454
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 1,037 Times in 727 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 372 Times in 345 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    No. Many atheists openly declare there is no god or gods. That is a positive statement. That is a religion.
    Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?

    Stop being so arrogant.

  11. #323 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_Panetta View Post
    There is no observable phenomenon compelling us to ask if a god exists.
    ... nor is there anything compelling us to believe in the Climate goddess who centrally plans the earth's weather and who miraculously causes the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_Panetta View Post
    And what is your definition of "god," anyway?
    What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  13. #324 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    You said all of your statements are speculations and I was agreeing. We have no idea how advanced their technologies are.
    We can further speculate that no matter how advanced they become, they cannot violate physics, e.g. accelerate beyond the speed of light, magically teleport, etc... despite our vivid sci-fi imaginations. Further, we can speculate that such life forms are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, including the 2nd law, which means they are probably not immortal and have finite lifespans.

    We can speculate that the conditions for life to generate and to exist are relatively uncommon but because the universe is simply so vast that we can speculate that the closest other such life forms are probably at least billions of times millions of light years away, that they aren't necessarily aware of us and thus unaware of our vector/direction. We have been emitting radio signals and other electronic signals for two centuries that travel at the speed of light so we can speculate that our signals have a few billion times millions of years to go to reach other life forms ... and that's assuming they are advanced enough to receive them and understand them.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  15. #325 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_Panetta View Post
    Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?

    Stop being so arrogant.
    Intothenight is an idiot. He does not even read posts he replies to. Troll

  16. #326 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,699 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael_Panetta View Post
    Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?
    Absolutely. If you have a theism that specifies with certainty that no "The Force" exists then that is an affirmative belief, just as if you affirmatively believe that Global Warming is real. Your religious beliefs are not limited to those things that do exist; you are entitled to believe things do not exist as well. Jews will affirmatively state that no Son of God Messiah ever existed.

    Everything changes when you phrase it in a non-affirmative statement of a lack of a belief, i.e. from "There is no Force" to "I don't have any belief in the Force." In the former, your affirmative belief precludes you from accepting the possibility the Force exists whereas the atheism of the latter case allows for discovery that it does.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  18. #327 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,844
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Depends on what they believe.
    Creationists, people such as myself who accept (on a faith basis) the Theory of Creation as a True, believe that life appeared on Earth as a result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

    A Christian, such as myself, will additionally claim that the Christian God is this "intelligence", but a Creationist need not be a Christian.


    How, by any of that, is a Creationist (or even a Christian) "anti-science"?

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  20. #328 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,844
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    When a Creationist says that the Earth is 6,000 years old,
    A Creationist need not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point, you are speaking of an entirely different religious belief, this one about the age of Earth rather than about how life came to be on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    he assumes that the scientists are lying or that the Devil has been planting false evidence.
    No, he is just expressing his religious belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is not denying science in any way, which does not speculate about the past.

    Personally, there is no particular theory about the age of the Earth that I accept as a True. I simply do not care about how old the Earth is and thus do not subscribe to any particular view about it. I do, however, find various views to be reasonable and/or interesting for one reason or another...

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  22. #329 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,844
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    The fossils exist. And yes we can verify their ages using various equipment.

    And yes I think there are life forms elsewhere but it's a speculation to say they cannot reach us.
    Oh really??!! How so?

    Faith is required to believe in radiometric dating, you know...

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to gfm7175 For This Post:

    Into the Night (09-24-2020)

  24. #330 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Oh really??!! How so?

    Faith is required to believe in radiometric dating, you know...

    Let's take the "it's all religion" argument head on. Religions can be wrong or bad.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2013, 01:19 PM
  2. Anti-Science Republicans
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-17-2013, 08:02 AM
  3. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 07:55 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 05:36 AM
  5. Anti Science?
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 08:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •