Is blind faith in science any better than blind faith in religion?

Christians are against christ

matt 16



20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ

 

5 years ago a team released data that turned the world of cosmology on its head. The reaction was ferocious, because the theory was so stupid, it had to be wrong. Two years ago that team won a Nobel prize for their work lol. Why? everyone went away, did the same experiments, got the same result and validated one of the most counter intuitive theories in history

- - - Updated - - -

And Catholics accept the theories of evolution. A Catholic Priest did a lot of the heavy lifting in supplying mathematical evidence of the Big Bang. So where does that leave you?

 

I disagree.

Whilst the phraseology is crude, I believe it provides an excellent summation of Abrahamic god's dwelling place.

Mathew 6:9
In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Indeed, as the god is not real, and obviously does not live in the sky, there seems to be ample biblical support for my analogy.

 

which one?

they would go extinct, if they didnt evolve with the knowledge of mankind

Evolving.

The big bang is not 'correct' in any sense of the concept as it has a premise based on the 2LoT.

Think of it like the idiots that are vegitarian. (ancient indian word for 'cant shoot straight')

 

Exactly.....one is left to wonder how many tests, measurements, experiments, or observations have been done in the last couple thousand years to verify or debunk religion?

I suppose the shroud of Turin?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles#Rossi.E2.80.93Hall_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles#Frisch-Smith_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

And all of our modern GPS satellites are a continuous test of the theories Einstein proposed. Are those enough for you?

The hell are you talking about here? "Made make ups in the plates"? What does that mean?

Pure conjecture.

None of those things are theories, but hypotheses. Except for the speed of light. The speed of light doesn't change.

I hate when people do this. You do realize that I can't read your damn post until you actually post it, right? It isn't like I can see you typing, stop you, and then answer your question before it is posted. Here is your evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence

 

Isaac Asimov was.

 

In science, there is one principle that stands equal to any belief in God, leprechauns and anything else. And that is the untestable hypothesis. It is WORTHLESS.

The fact remains, the brightest scientists in the world, and the most legendary of cosmologists, simply have no idea where the universe came from. They can speculate, but that is no different to any theistic speculation.

Einstein himself said that he believed that the universe had to have come from somewhere or something that must have created it.

The fact is, when it comes to why the universe is here, you either have blind faith, or you believe nothing at all. Or you just admit that we don't know.

 

Didn't Jesus go from the Earth TO Heaven after he was done hangin with his big dawgs after the Resurrection? Is Heaven on Earth....or "up"....or is it..."down"????

 

I didn't ask you to post propaganda based in silly tests about relativity, I have asked you to post tests made specifically to check the functional work of clocks when exposed to acceleration. Don't play that you can't understand this simple request, look, I will make it more clear: Hell with those tests about relativity, show the tests made with the clocks.

Those tests assumig dilatation of time are all a waste because the clocks malfunction and that is the cause of the variation in data between clocks on ground zero and in outer space. Even the tess made t with atomic clocks in airplanes are a piece of junk when they have never tested the clock itself first against different environments.

Be clear that atomic clocks were tested only against pressure (do not confuse pressure with gravity) and temperature. Never tested them against acceleration and If they did so, they covered up the results because such results surely turned down their silly relativistic imaginations. lol.

Read "Einstein's Luck", where all the fraud made by Eddington is exposed. The title of this book is a mockery against Hawking when in hiis book A brief History of Time wrote that 'their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence un science.""

Sheer luck my butt lol... it was fraud, a big fraud. John Waller, the science historian said that the fraud of Eddinton (he didn't call it fraud even when it is clearly exposed) wasaa kind of recompense made to Newton, and this part might be true, because Newton was a huge dude, and he used his punches on the other scientists' noses in order to validate his theories... yes, he practically imposed his ideas with physical force... no joke...

Several years ago some Australian scientists affirmed that light get slower with distance. Amazingly I was discussing the same topic online when the news came out. The point is because light itself spreads out, this is to say, the light waves scattered themselves after their outcome from a body. From here, we have an energy that won't renew itself (it is not a perpetual machine) and will decay as everything decays in the universe. So, light will not only decay but its speed will slow.

If you think the contrary, then you are believing that light is a goddes which is eternally traveling in space, and you are then, having blind faith.... My advice for you is to avoid blind faith...

And about black holes, stop posting dumb propaganda and if you really want to answer my request, then show a star in a process of becoming a back hole. Show stars which are candidates for black holes, show another phenomenon in the universe that is similar to that silly idea of bodies shrinking and pulling evything around because its density...

Come on, the idea of black holes is a fantasy, the dude Eddington invented it in his attempt of making relativity a useful theory... read who was behind the approval of relativity... read who was behind the black holes idea... it was the same Eddington... a fraud... that is what you believe in... in a fraud... lol

 

but please do not give up.

If the people of science were not living on the quest to seek understanding, none of us would be discussing on this forum.

We may each just gather at the evening witch hunt, for entertainment.

But instead, we are evolving to a point that the misleading sobs, WILL NOT survive.

 

I guess in America our answer would be, believe in whatever gets you the most stuff.

 

Actually they do. You need to study the subject before you start making false statements. There are plenty of transitional fossils. There is pretty good evidence that we are descended from a common ancestor with apes.

Science and atheism are not equivalents. Science and religion are not opponents. The Catholic Church pretty much agrees that evolution is the method that God used to create the earth.

That's pretty much the consensus today.

Mistake in the textbooks. Textbooks are not science. They are watered down versions of science. Huxley, one of Darwin's contemporaries, was convinced (and IMHO, rightfully so) that birds are dinosaurs.

It still is. It's just not a major planet.

Of course not. Science and religion involved different aspects of human existence. Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is the study of the supernatural world.

That is science. It is impossible to prove anything (except for in mathematics). It is only possible in science to disprove.

Psychology isn't really science. I've never heard of meterology, is it the study of measurement or length?


My problem is that you make the same philosophical mistake that a lot of atheists do, and that is that science and religion are equivalent and involve the same matters. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually they do. You need to study the subject before you start making false statements. There are plenty of transitional fossils. There is pretty good evidence that we are descended from a common ancestor with apes.

Science and atheism are not equivalents. Science and religion are not opponents. The Catholic Church pretty much agrees that evolution is the method that God used to create the earth.

That's pretty much the consensus today.

Mistake in the textbooks. Textbooks are not science. They are watered down versions of science. Huxley, one of Darwin's contemporaries, was convinced (and IMHO, rightfully so) that birds are dinosaurs.

It still is. It's just not a major planet.

Of course not. Science and religion involved different aspects of human existence. Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is the study of the supernatural world.

That is science. It is impossible to prove anything (except for in mathematics). It is only possible in science to disprove.

Psychology isn't really science. I've never heard of meterology, is it the study of measurement or length?


My problem is that you make the same philosophical mistake that a lot of atheists do, and that is that science and religion are equivalent and involve the same matters. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

If you needed heart surgery would you put your faith in the science to help you or your prayers? If you would go to the doctor then you have your answer as to which you personally have more faith in.
If you needed to be rescued from being stranded while hiking due to a broken leg would you use your science based cell phone to call for help or pray for someone to come get you?
If you want to convey your opinions to thousands of people that you've never met would you use a science based computer to do it or pray that people have visions of your opinion? (we already know you picked science over theology here)
I have a million of these.

 

Well, duties are over and relaxing time is ahead. (I'll hope not many typos like when you are in a hurry between breaks)

I know that Graspingforpeace won't find much about tests made on atomic clocks before using them by relativists to test their imaginary dilatation of time.

The storytelling about black holes goes to extreme caricature when Hawking said that black holes "evaporate". On the other hand, detecting radiation at one point in space could be anything but black holes... come on...

The question is why people with so much intellect believe in such nonsenses?

Do these intellectual people hate God that much that they prefer to believe in good for nothing theories as long as the silly ideas will deny God somehow?

I understand Darwin hatred against God because he was a religious dude praying and praying so his daughter should recover from her sickness... but the daughter died and Darwin decided to work against God... some kind of Dr. Evil... When he was young he was sweet...after his daughter death he became a dracula...

Others, like Einstein, decided to create their own religion, like his unfamous Cosmical Religion... which ended with one member alone: Einstein himself.

So, we have a fact here, that many people full of hatred are in a continued war against religion. And these people will do whatever is in their hands to convince others that religion is false from the scientific point of view.

But, everyone of their attempt fails. God manages to do so. Recently a poster mentioned that one ice core layer in the poles and in Greenland means one year, and more than one hundred thousand of ice core layers have been counted, so the bible is incorrect. Reading forward online, it is found the news in many old articles from different news agencies, that a WW2 airplane left in Greenland was found under hundreds of feet of ice, and under hundreds of ice core layers.

So, this last attempt made to discredit the bible was debunked by an airplane that was abandoned 50 years ago in Greenland.

Still many participants here don't want to accept the fact, the fact that ice core layers are not accumulated one per year but it can be lots, tens of ice core layers accumulated in a single year.

Their refusal to this fact discovered when the airplane was found under hundreds of ice core layers, and their obstinate belief in one ice core layer per year is definitively blind faith.

 

I like how experiments are synonymous with "propaganda" for you.

Some Experimental Tests of the "Clock Paradox"

One of the tests mentioned in this summary was already posted to you and you failed to look at it.

Here are some more:

Testing Einstein's time dilation under acceleration using Mossbauer spectroscopy

Time on a Rotating Platform

Time in the theory of relativity: on natural clocks, proper time, the clock hypothesis, and all that

You're welcome for doing all the leg work that you should have been doing.

Thankfully we aren't relying on an inaccurate experiment from 1919 to prove the theory correct anymore. Anyways, Eddington wasn't the one that discarded the data, it was Frank Dyson.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf

Source required.

This isn't an argument. If you're so affronted by "bad science", it seems very hypocritical of you to employ arguments like this.

Stars burn for billions of years and massive stars collapsing are only one explanation for how they could form.

Uh... you mean like a star?

Once again, this isn't an argument, it is an opinion.

 

Best bet would seem to be not put your faith blindly in anything, eh?

 

This is a true story.

A group of member of Peace Corps went to Ukraine. Ukraine was just free from the Soviet Union, but the medicine was still holding the Asian influence. The Russians allowed doctors from Asia and surroundings to take care of medical affairs in Ukraine.

Well, one of the women of the Peace Corps had a bad stomach pain, so bad that she was taken to a medical post. In Ukraine there were medical posts by many, and a few clinics and hospitals counted with the fingers.

Here is when the story takes a suddent twist:

The nurse asked to the woman to rest in a stretcher. The rest of the group were allowed to stay close to the woman. The doctor, who's appearance was definitively Asiatic, asked a few questions to the patient. He put his notes besides the stretcher and he put his hands on her head at one or two inches of distance. From here, the doctor very slowly started to move his hands over her face, her neck, her chest, her stomach, and when his hands were over her intestines area, lots of sounds were heard, like gases moving from one side to another. He continued with his hands on the air and moved them until he reached her feet. When he finished, he went back to his notes, he told the nurse that the patient can go home and he left the room.

The witness looked at the woman, and she said that she was feeling OK, and she went up and leave the medical post as if nothing wrong was with her.

The very next day, the rest of members of that Peace Corps group were faking to be sick in order to be in that medical post and receive the same treatment.

The story is true, and what can you say about it?

 

Hang on, "unquestioning adulation"?
Whereas this may be representative of religious belief, it is not true of science. In fact, the reason science is accepted is because it is based on questioning and answers supported with evidence.

Note that you've referred to it as "The theory of evolution". It is a theory with a LOT of evidence to back it up. The reason it is not scientific law is because it has not been recreated in a controlled setting. This differs from "fact" only slightly,

You might want to educate youself on this topic. http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

This is another topic on which you might want to educate yourself. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
97% of all peer-reviewed scientific publications worldwide dealing with the possibility of climate change agreed not only that climate change is real, but that humans are the primary cause. Are you saying that scientists are part of a worldwide conspiracy that would somehow benefit by "the government" controlling Western industry?

Interesting that you should choose that metaphor...
I'd be interested in a link illustrating what that one professor said. Let's compare it to the number of Christians who have said crazy things.

You haven't illustrated that it is.

Can you illustrate that "the homosexual lobby" was the root cause, as opposed to additional information obtained from study of the issue?

Once again, you haven't illustrated that it is.

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that dinosaurs never existed? If so, can you explain what the jawbone currently attributed to the Tyrannosaurus Rex might have belonged to?
At the risk of oversimplifying, putting together a skeleton is a little like assembling a jigsaw puzzle without a final picture to give you hints. Have you ever assembled a jigsaw of several hundred pieces and gotten every piece in it's correct location on the first try?

The reality is that science allows itself to be challenged, and accepts new information to change theories until they are proven and become scientific law.
That's exactly what makes it superior to superstition/religion, which is based on nothing.
Does science provide "absolute truth" with every theory? No. Is it based on the things we can prove to be true? Yes. Does this make it more reliable than religious dogma? Absolutely.

And yet hear you sit, in heating or air conditioning, typing on a computer, safe from predatory animals, having recently eaten clean food that has been refrigerated... complaining that science provides you with less than religion; despite religion being based on nothing but hunchwork, educated guesses and theories of stone-age goat herders.

Once again, you haven't established that...

 

Science is to religion what the Moon is to the Sun, and while I'm sure you understand that readily, I'm also sure there are some who would need that spelled out in more detail before they can or will understand. Right now, outside the window, looks like a quarter moon, but give it a few days, will be a different story.

 

Threads where the OP makes an argument and then just disappears, never to reply to the thread, should be deleted outright.

 

There is so much wrong is this post, I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll start at the beginning, time dilation and atomic clocks. you do realize that the military uses GPS satellites for navigation and guiding bombs and missiles to targets right? Do you also realize that GPS satellites are extremely expensive the make and to put into orbit? That being said, don't you think that the government would check the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites for accuracy before they put them in orbit?

Another point is that if it was an error producing the time dilation, then when the test is repeated with a different atomic clock (or even a different type) then the time dilation would be different, but not only is the time dilation the same, but it is exactly as Einstein's formula's predict it would be.

If you don't believe in black holes, what the hell do you care if they evaporate for not?

As for the ice accumulation, unless you have some links to prove that this happened, I'm calling it bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Finally I will address your hatred toward Einstein. I can only assume that it comes from the fact that you have only heard or him but have never actually studied anything he did, especially since you sitting in front a computer screen that wouldn't have even been possible without Einstein's work on photons. Oh, and of course atomic bombs/energy wouldn't be possible without Einstein.

 

I would say that I don't trust unsubstantiated anecdotes. Please supply links or I will have to assume you made this up.

 

I told you clearly to stop posting silly propaganda about relativity, and this link given by you is another piece of such a crap. Did you read it?

If you didn't, please do, from its very beginning in the introduction, the explanation is to praise relativity, the test itself is impartial, its intent is to prove relativity right.

By the way, I'm glad you have posted it, so we can discuss about that experiment. I'll hope you won't think that copy and paste will be your answer. I want to check if I'm not discussing with a complete idiot who just copy and paste but with a person who will also read and give his opinion about his own link.

So, who was the experimenter again? What kind of vehicle was used to accelerate the clock? Exactly what kind of clock was the one(s) used? Do you think that we might have more accurate methods today?

And, with the returning clock, when suffered the variation of data, why the author emphatized that was caused by speed and not by acceleration? What do you think?

I will be honest with you, with dudes who only copy and paste links as their answers, I pay not much attention. So, if you want others taking you seriously, at least give your opinion of what you think and write the part in your link that supports your position. Please, don't get offended, but any child can copy and paste links, OK?

As I stated before, you must start to write comments taken from your links, because posting links alone is not work but a silly action of yours.

Ignorance in progress with your answer.

Eddington was at first the leader of one of the 1919 eclipse expeditions. And he was in charge of the results before presenting them to the scientific community. The plates favored Newton's prediction but Eddington manipulated the facts and made make ups to favor Einstein's predctions. Even more, the whole plates were invalid because the requirement was the presence of at least 6 fixed stars to make the measurements and in this eclipse only five fixed stars were visible. Even so, Eddington made the fraud and presented the manipulated plates and results to Frank Dyson who was the Astronomer Royal. He convinced him about the validation of relativity.

About slowing light by Australian scientists? Surely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-517850.html

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters.

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the Aug. 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

See? Light as energy is not a perpetual machine renewing itself, so it will decay, and by consequence its speed will slow. Period.

Bad science is the big lie that light travels at the same speed regardless of distance. Relativists ignore the basic rule given by Newton about traveling of bodies where the speed is at the most when it comes out and when slows down with distance... the same applies to light... no special rule is given to anything in the universe... the same Newton's rule... confirmed...

And yes, this is the best argument: do you really think that light travels at the same speed regardless of distance? Why you think so? No links accepted, your opinion is requested.

Blah blah blah... I asked you for observations and you lack of links. What is going on here? Show the links with pictures of stars becoming black holes... without the pictures your theory has lots of gaps... or missing links ha ha ha... black holes are now becoming another theory of evolution... lol

You appear to ignore where are you standing... look I was asking you... sheesss just forget it... lol

Just face it, it is blind faith your defense on a silly and good for nothing theory. Your messages reveal just blind faith and lots of copying and pasting... lol

 

You are talking peanuts.

Do you know that receivers were built with a device updating the wrong data given by atomic clocks in satellites because the malfunction of those clocks in space?

Do this with common and cheap digital watches.
1)- By five of them.
2)- Check that they have new batteries, and set them at the same time including the measurement second.
3)- Put one hanging in the living room at 70 degrees temperature.
4)- Put the other four inside the freezer compartment and leave them there for one day or two.
5)- do a daily check of the time data comparing the watches inside the freezer with the one hanging on the wall. Do it for a week, a month, whatever.

Results, the watches inside the freezer will slow or speed up the same amount of seconds. This is to say, the watches might slow down 5 seconds per day, all of then equally, perhaps one will have different data after a week, but their similarity in wrong data will be practically the same.

This is as well what happens with atomic clocks in outer space, the different environment causes them to malfunction, all of them with similar wrong data.

So, you do believe in black holes, and that they "evaporate"... ha ha ha...

Here one found under 40 feet of ice
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...e-greenland/FoqPHcnYyGf0UvY3OF6Z8J/story.html

Here another one from the NY Times, found under 260 feet of ice!
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/u...-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html

And this one is about evolution and creation: Creation is the winner, of course...

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-ice.htm



After all, the impression the general public has is that the buildup of glacial ice takes very long time periods thousands of years for just a few metres
Since when is "the impression the general public has" considered a valid basis for science?
Anyone genuinely familiar with ice core dating knows that, like the growth rings of a tree, the quantity used in counting is the number of discernable annual layers -- not the thickness. Weiland at first seems to be somewhat aware of that as he continues:

In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.
Nowhere is it indicated that the seekers of the buried aircraft extracted intact ice core samples and subjected them to the tests used in scientific dating, yet, a bit further on, Weiland says:
Evolutionists and other long-agers often say that 'the present is the key to the past'. In that case, the 3000 metres of ice core brought up in Greenland in 1990 would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
Suddenly 250 feet of ice thickness that was melted through has become "3000 metres of ice core". Is this guy funny, or what? Exageration for comic effect, I suppose. He next shows us how it's all evidence for creationism --
Allowing of course for compression of lower layers, (which is also offset by the inevitable aftermath of a global Flood, namely much greater precipitation and snowfall for a few centuries) there is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah's day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up even under today's generally non-catastrophic conditions.
If ice cores had in fact been extracted and analysis determined that the aircraft were buried thousands or millions of years ago, Weiland might have an arguable case. As is, all he's got is proof of his own gullibility.

Einstein becomes an idiot when he followed the fraud to Eddington. He burnt himself. About the atomic bomb.

It appears that you ignore the whole story. Until some decades ago, relativists run the voice that Einstein was a pacifist and that for this reason he didn't participate in the Manhattan project.

But, reality is that yes, indeed, Einstein tried to be part of the Manhattan project. He was asked to solve some formulas and equations to be studied in Washington DC. The papers given by Einstein were received and the answer came later on, saying that because the short time given to Einstein might caused him to provide such results. In other words, Einstein's formulas sucked that bad that his butt was kicked off the Manhattan project. I can find the letter of firing given to a militar in charge to tell Einstein about such decision from the high command.

See? Einstein was a good for nothing after his photo-electric. and he spent his last years trying to mix his "imaginations" (read relativity) with Quantum Mechanics, and, of course, a complete failure when you try to mix fantasies with reality.

I feel pity for this dude Einstein, he appeared to be a good fella, but he decided to be the idiot and he should have been nominated not for another Nobel Prize but for an Oscar, because by playing the idiot... he did it so well.. lol