The only "true believers" are those befouling the Science forum with their "creationism" bovine excrement fallacies
Religion #3963 says Earth is 6000 years old. Religion #2332 says humans are descendants of space aliens. Religion #2975 says humans are from another planet. Two of the largest religions on Earth, Christianity and Islam, are diametrically opposed. I think there should be established a 'religion method' similar to 'scientific method' in which all 4200 religions agree to test and retest and find consensus to consolidate the 4200 religions into a 'single religion'. Since none of this process will involve 'scientific method', the resulting 'single religion' can never be compared to 'scientific method'. However, if anyone from the new 'religion method' wishes to challenge current science, they will be invited to follow scientific methodology to validate, or not, the information. Short of this action, science will continue to be bombarded by philosophy, history, mythical beliefs, snake oil salespersons, etc. never finding consensus...just more vitriol and division...
Religion # 7734 says that the universe happened through godless processes, with no intelligence. Will your 'religion method' work on it, as well? 'Science!' .. .. is not the problem.. pseudoscience, doing violence to the scientific method, and masquerading as science, is. But it is merely another religious belief, even if they have hijacked the term. The most successful snake oil salesmen have been progressive ideologues, mandating their beliefs, and censoring the competition.
This is a science subforum.. nobody wants to deal with the science and facts, regarding ancient dates? Fallacies are all you have in this, too?
We have that already. It is called war. The religion of atheistic naturalism has used it, too, and will again, I'm sure. Humanity has not changed much (if at all), and demeaning, berating, demonizing, and killing those who believe differently will continue.
Prove it. You haven't named any problems. And your basis for that pronouncement is...? Something tells me you've never stopped to question why the Moon is receding. If it's at the perfect distance now, why is it receding? Do we need a multitrillion dollar program to do for the lunar orbit what ecofreaks want to do for global climate?
There is no such thing as pseudoscience or masquerading as science?? Science is science...period. Either stuff can go through the scientific method or it cannot. This is a huge problem today in which many people ignore facts! For example, a piece of white bread with a hole in the center IS NOT a bagel. Marketers and some people will call it a bagel, and act like it's a bagel, but it is not a bagel! Science method is science method...period...
I missed this before, but that's incorrect. The Moon is tidally locked, and its orbit is prograde, i.e., in the same direction as Earth's rotation.
Radioactive decay is a random process. There is no known way to predict the radioactive decay of a single atom. The randomness comes from the application of quantum mechanics to radioactive decay. A bound alpha particle does not have a definite energy or momentum; its energy or momentum is constantly fluctuating and at some random time it achieves enough energy to become free of its bound state. I can't prove it but it is supported by the fact that radioactive decay is observed to be a random process and this is supported by quantum theory. Copied portions from https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_uncertainty.html A similar thing happens at the sub-atomic scale, when alpha particles try to escape from unstable nuclei during radioactive decay. The particles are effectively held in the nucleus by the nuclear forces and, in principle, should not be able to escape. However, escape they do, using a process known as quantum tunneling, which makes use of the wave-like aspect of the particles, but also of a more general phenomenon known as "uncertainty" (which we will look at in more detail below). Due to the wave-like aspect of particles, and the ability to describe an object by means of a probability wave, as we have seen, quantum physics predicts that there is a finite probability that an object trapped behind a barrier (without the energy to overcome the barrier) may at times appear on the other side of the barrier, without actually overcoming it or breaking it down. For instance, if an electron approaches an electric field and is repelled by it, there is nevertheless some probability, however small, that it will find itself on the other side of the field With the advent of the uncertainty principle, then, particles could no longer be said to have separate, well-defined positions and velocities, but only a “quantum state”, a combination of position and velocity. If it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time, then those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities. The principle effectively overturned in one fell swoop the whole doctrine of scientific determinism which had been implicitly assumed since Newton and Laplace in the 17th Century, and redefined the task of physics as the discovery of laws that will allow us to predict events UP TO THE LIMITS set by the uncertainty principle. In fact, the uncertainty principle can be reformulated in yet another way to say that it is impossible to simultaneously measure the energy of a particle and the interval of time for which it has been in existence. Over a very tiny interval of time, there can therefore be a large uncertainty in the energy content of a particular location, and energy or even pairs of fundamental particles (known as "virtual particles", because they exist for such a short time that they are not considered part of everyday reality) could even appear out of nothing in the apparently empty vacuum of space and exist for a split-second before disappearing again. The more energy that is put into a vacuum, the more particles causelessly pop out of it. It appears, then, that there is no such thing as empty space. Such a phenomenon (particles constantly popping in and out of existence), unlikely though it may sound, is well documented and has actually been indirectly observed through observations of the changing energy of existing electrons which are buffeted by such appearances and disappearances. In effect, the energy needed to create these virtual particles can be "borrowed" from the vacuum for a period of time, but the net energy from the reaction is still zero. Because overall they cancel each other out, they cannot be said to even exist in the classical world, nor to break any of the laws of classical physics.
You understand that randomness is purely subjective, right? There's no known way to predict an airline crash either. That hardly means it has no underlying cause.
Randomness as applied to quantum mechanics is not a subjective process. Radioactive decay obeys Poisson statistics and the results are highly predictable. From Wikipedia, "randomness. According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[11] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[12] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments, but only the probabilities. Hidden variable theories reject the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are at work behind the scenes, determining the outcome in each case. There have been many attempts since the early 20th century to determine if there are hidden variables to account for quantum randomness but no one has been able to come up with such a model, including Albert Einstein.
Common Ancestry: millions and billions of years! thepoliticsforums.com/threads/138917-Common-Ancestry-millions-and-billions-of-years! Oct 27, 2019 · How do the believers in Common Ancestry 'know' that the earth & universe is millions or billions of years old? They don't. They ASSUME it. There is NO verifiable, testable, or quantifiable method to measure dating for these time frames. They are all fraught with assumptions & speculations, then declared as 'scientific fact'.
??!? Are you claiming that usfan stole the article from another usfan? With an identical avatar? Seems like a reach.
I wrote it myself. I posted it in 2 different discussion forums, a few days apart. I source any quotes. It was not necessary to source this, as it was accurately attributed to the writer of the OP. Me. My contributions here will dwindle, if not cease, as the unrelenting bullying, heckling, false accusations, and censorship is too discouraging. People here seem to want conformity and confirmation bias, not different perspectives. I can tilt at windmills elsewhere.
..this was a point in the OP. Thanks for the confirmation. ..too many assumptions. Not enough hard science. 'Time' is still too mysterious, unknown, and indefinable on the infinite scale of the universe. Thanks for the discussions.. i will likely fade from this forum.
hmmm, so you're saying that if enough people tell the same story, it must be true... interesting, considering those peers also rely on funding which can & will be pulled if the findings arent 'liked' by the fundee
In only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era. This is true of both the military and non-military threats to humanity. – The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 45
Science and Medieval Philosophy: Maimonides | My Jewish ... https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/science... As Isadore Twersky has shown, Maimonides was also not averse to introducing scientific knowledge into his formulations of Jewish law, not only “to integrate science, to relate a scientific vocabulary and axiology to rabbinic law, but also to recognize its autonomy and not to superimpose it on the structure and fabric of the halakha [Jewish ...
