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

Piltdown man was proven to be a hoax. As a result, scientists now reject it. Christians are blindly faithful and will never reject it. Science isn't a religion based on culture, beliefs and values, so it's easier to change one's scientific beliefs.

 

The creos bitterly cling to their hoaxes. "Paluxy man tracks"

 

Creos?

 

Creos, aka fundies, aka craetionsits.

You did know that?

And agree that they do bitterly cling to their hoaxes, while bringing up over and over the "piltdown man" hoax (practical joke*), the work of one unidentified man done for unknown reasons. There are no frauds, hoaxes etc as charged beyond that.

There is quite a list of creationist frauds, without getting into all of the distortions, misrepresentation, fabrications etc that are the substance of all their arguments.

I will assume you know this?

* a similar incident many years earlier involved a professor who took an amateur interest in the fossil sea shells from a nearby quarry. Another started carving 'fossils' that got more and more outlandish until it blew up in their faces and both were fired.

 

OK. An attempted insult. Got it. Yawn...

 

No, you didnt. Its just a shorthand word for creationist. People use the word "evo" too.

If there is an insult here, you are insulting yourself by getting all sensitive about a perceived insult.

Whether you intended to insult me by presenting that all I was doing
was tossing out an insulting word rather than making a factual observation about an honesty problem typical of creationists is of course, on your own conscience.

I'd say, tho, that in general if you cannot make a substantive response
it may be better not to make any, let alone one about your overly tender feelings.

 

More insults...tsk tsk tsk

 

Yet millions of people blindly accepted the Piltdown man as proof of evolution, and never gave up the belief in evolution even though their proof was shown to be a hoax. Most never challenged or questioned it, they just accepted it as gospel.

After all, how many people still believe that different regions of the tongue host the ability to taste different things (only 4), or that humans only have five senses? They were taught those beliefs in school, never challenged them and still sincerely believe them. Most people still believe that coal becomes diamonds, that the Coriolis effect is what causes draining water to spin, or that gravity is a force. All things we were taught in science class, all untrue. Yet the dogmatic followers of science continue to believe them.

What I'm describing is really just part of what makes humans human. Some people try to pretend that it isn't true of them, but I'd venture to say that there isn't a human alive that doesn't hold at least a few beliefs dogmatically and without any real evidence. That is just something that humans do - even the followers of science.

 

Right,...

The Bible could well be saying that we came from Apes who have 24 Chromosomes, because a MUTATION in the womb caused fusion of two Chromosome and man, with only 23 chromosomes, evolved as consequence.



Then, reading the Bible with the understanding Adam was reference to a SPECIES, not one man who lived 950 years, we can see that the Genesis genealogy of 22 links to modern man is identical to the present paleontology of 22 now extinct humans.

 

True that the present world population has diversified into seven races today.

That makes it somewhat less clear how the original Racial Stock is related to specific peoples now.




Human evolution
Using his genetic distance theory, he and A. K. Roychoudhury showed that the genetic variation between Europeans, Asians, and Africans is only about 11 percent of the total genetic variation of the human population,[14] which was in agreement with the results published by R. C. Lewontin in the same year. Nei and Roychoudhury then estimated that Europeans and Asians diverged about 55,000 years ago and these two populations diverged from Africans about 115,000 years ago.[15] This conclusion was supported by many later studies using larger numbers of genes and populations, and the estimates are still widely used. This study was a forerunner of the out of Africa theory of human origin by Allan Wilson.

 

The Old Testament is verifying the fact that two kings of societies existed until Jesus appeared.

The Old Testament correctly describes the Hebrew patriarchs who are singularly different from all the Gentile nations surrounding them, based on different perspectives concerning our relationships with women.

God has always favored the sexually prudent patriarchs who consistently have invaded and torn down weak spoiled rich sexually depraved matriarchies neighboring them.

This all true, isn't it?
Doesn't the Sharia of the Islamic patriarchies identify wit the these same tings in the Old Testament?????

 

That's why you wear safety goggles!

 

The difference is that while religion stands still with its doctrines because the only one who can change it is God, on the other hand humans change their minds the same way women change their shoes.

How are you going to believe in a person who constanly changes his mind? Come on, scientists don't know anything at all about the origin of the universe, the only thing scientists have is dumb hypothesis, nothing factual at all, but conjectures by lots.

Scientists believe with their theories in several myths, but their pride stop them to accept their failures. Example:

Hundreds of ice core layers over a 50 years lost WW2 airplane can't be accepted to the closed mind people who blinded believe that only one ice core layer can happen per year. And worst, counting those ice core layers can't even be made by optical means, because after a certain number of feet, the pressure of the top layers is that bad, that you can't differenciate one layer from another, and the counting "has to be made by calculation" using a computer that is working with a software where the asssumed increased pressure is implied. This is to say, the counting is based in speculation.

And such a way of counting makes you believe in speculations... But they assure you that the software is "OK", that everything is fine... sure... right....

With the biblical God, he doesn't change and religion is a fixed belief, and being so has standed up for millenniums, and still guiding people for better, because the principles of the Bible were in fact the root of the US Constitution and the trunk of the social laws in most of the Western countries of the world. The influence of religion will not end, because the survival of our species practically depends on the biblical principles.

While science (understand that I said "science" not so "scientific theories") is giving us more comfort and a way to relief pain and suffering with our continuous decay as species, religion is what makes us strong to look forward a better future.

This is why, we can believe having religion, but we can't believe in those good for nothing theories of science, we can however, stand on scientific facts.

 

According to you the patriarchs didn't even exist, they were metaphors. Or did you forget that?

 

Still awaiting your reply to my last post to you about relativity.

 

Please provide examples in support of your contention that scientists "change their minds the way women change their shoes." That strikes me as argument by mere insult (both of scientists and women).

I would say that scientists may revise their theories and conclusions based on new evidence, but they do not change their minds on their basic reliance on verifiable observation and rigorous logic.

BTW, "good-for-nothing" scientific theories, atomic theory for example, make possible the computer you are using.

 

Did you compare the formula given by relativity with the formula used by Pound-Rebka? The square roots are missing in the Pound-Rebka's formula, the only excuse might be that their experiment was made between a four floor and the basement, and the distance was that short... but this indeed nullifies the accuracy of the results toward relativistic approaches

You can cry, you can scream, you can pull your hair, whatever... the fact is that when formulas are manipulated to fit a different scenario, then you are talking of a "different formula"... because it is not the same to imply that 5 + 4 = 9 is the same proportional than to say 5^2 + 4^2 = 9^2 .

Sorry relativists, nice try, but rules are rules.
I have stated long ago that we can't trust lots of theorical scientists because they will commit frauds in order to obtain their wished results.

A more clear explanation of why blueshift is non-relativistic is here, this site debunks with clear and simple explanations why Pound-Rebka calculations are a fake.

http://milesmathis.com/pound.html

Apparently you still don't find how they "experimented" with the atomic clock, because it is not said in your link or what? Ha ha ha...(From where are you going to "copy and paste" it now? lol)

Do you see now? Pound-Rebka have nothing to do with atomic clocks. They are even a wrong reference when in such experiment were used "different" formulas.

Sorry, no relativistic formulas were used with Pound-Rebka, the square roots are missing,,, lol

And what do you think about it? Was he right? Why? I want to hear your opinion, did he said "speed" or "velocity"?

No, you don't have to answer my questions, because you really don't know the answers. Even when the web is invaded by sites praising relativity and "confirming" Pound-Rebka as accurate, reality is that thew whole thing about relativity is a hoax since its fraudulent validation. This is why relativists are pushing so hard everywhere with their web links, books, news, etc...they want to convince people at all costs about their fantasies as science.

Eddington was a fanatic, a lunatic, a blind faith believer who suffered a lot when the Sweeden members of the Nobel Prize rejected relativity as science and catalogued it as philosophy. He then invented the black holes phenomenon, something that nature won't allow by any means to happen, in reality such idea is complete lunacies, but Eddington in his fanatic intentions pushed the idea from mere abstract mathematics to a possible real phenomenon.

Other fanatic relativists, who by pride of their ethnic group or whatever, pushed the idea using all the communication media. Do you know why the web link I posted right above proving the non-relativistic Pound-Rebka can't be added in Wikipedia? It is because the owner of Wikipedia is Jewish, just contact him and he will reply you with the greetings: "Shalom, I'm such and such..." Not all Jewish people agree with Einstein, but come on, Einstein's picture was once in their Israeli currency bill... for many will be offensive to recognize that Einstein was totally incorrect with his time dilatation... they will take it as "anti-semite"... lol.. plus imagine how much money many followers of relatyivity will lose when relativity is recognized officially a stupid idea... the schools having that name Einstein will be victims of mockery... There are many reasons why this fantasy of relativity is alive as if it was science, but definitively relativity is philosophy... no more than that.

Try to correct the mistakes made in Wikipedia favoring relativity and even when you have links, book references, formulas, etc on your side as verifiable information, your edited input will be deleted and the original mistakes supporting relativity will be placed back in place. You can't even add a common and accepted new article confronting relativity, they will erased it. This is how blind faith works with the followers of the good for nothing theories of science.

There is a minimum of points of reference to make the measurements. Have you ever did your a science experiment in your school life? Your replies seem to portarit you as a science neophyte.

Massless or no massless, what in the world makes you think that it won't decay when you even admit that light is affected by gravity? Hello?

Because there have been nothing observed lasting forever in the same status. The universe decay is a fact, from more complex elements into simpler elements. Decay is a rule that nothing physical can avoid.

The myth of light traveling eternally without decaying is laughable, you are practically inventing a goddess.

 

Blind faith is always wrong. Fortunately, science doesn't require it.

 

You still on that gibberish?

You actually think that people continue to spend millions of dollars every year on ice cores, even though its been "discovered" that they are meaningless?

I wonder why you find it acceptable to lie.

this for example...

now, perhaps you are merely quoting someone else's lie; does that make it more acceptable in the eyes of your " lord" or your own conscience?

it is certainly true that the layers get thinner and thinner as one goes down, but it is not true they can only be distinguished by guesses and assumptions. You dont even know enough to know how it is really done.

Anywhere one wants to take an ice core btw, whether glacier, arctic or antarctic, or under the lost squadron,you can count down to 79AD and there will be the characteristic ash from Mt Vesuvias, the spike in H2S04. C14 dating on the organic matter will give the same result.

The same works for any known volcanic eruption.

its always kind of funny how the creos just will not give up their shabbiest hoaxes, tho its understandable, as falsehoods (all shabby) are the only thing they have to work with.

How do you square it with your conscience, tho, that is something I'd like to know.

- - - Updated - - -

Creos are always wrong too. "Paluxy man tracks" "Lost squadron".
They have the darndest collection of "Piltdown men" to which they bitterly cling!

 

But some Theories are so well established as to not be much to argue against the theories we deal with all the time and ones we don't and can't. No one would question the classic Theory of Gravity while Black Holes we have serious basic ideas about them but cannot do more than distant observation and they could have Dark Suns and other ideas as real to. Science has to be skeptical but when a theory is tossed out its replaced by a better tested theory.

When we can go up to a black hole area and do direct testing with probes and such we likely will get a stronger Black Hole Theory.

 

No? Lol.. lets see about evolution.

Evolutionists used the word "evolution" in their theory because they thought that species indeed "evolved".

This is to say, they used the word "evolution" (with all its applications as noun, verb, etc) because they thought that species first were inferior, worst and simpler, to later develop into superior, better and more complex.

Darwin also supported the idea when in his conclusions and capitualtions of his book Origin of the Species, he stated that his Natural Selection will work only by slow and favorable steps". No other possible variation was accepted by Darwin, because such was the arrow of "evolution".

When facts started to debunk this theory of evolution, then the evolutionists started to commit frauds, the Pitdown man in one of them, a fraud made to survive a court case against teaching this faulty theory.

Still, people was so ignorant that they kept believing in a fraud, but,we understand this is how it is, we are humans...

Evolutionists then changed 99% of the theory, but kept the title "evolution" and the doctrine "Natural Selection", because they lost the war against the Bible, but they camouflaged their failure by calling their theory the Neo-Darwininan theory of evolution.

Gaps and missing links were observed, and evolutionists instead of recognized them, they worked hard to eliminate the words "gaps" and "missing links" from their articles and books. Doing so, they thought that the problem was over.

Still, nothing came out the way they wanted. The several experiments and tests with viruses and bacteria indeed showed new resistant to aggressive agents against them, but a the same time, these visuses and bacteria lost other characterisatics that make them more weak in comparison with viruses and bacteria of the same class not exposed to the experimental aggressive agents.

In other words, there is not a "win-win" outcoming in the species, it is always a "win and lost" scenario.

Even more, the horse itself is the best example of how degenerate steps work, because the current equus has lost more characteristics than gained new ones against its primeval ancestor.

The evolutionists found out that their Neo-Darwinian was also obsolete, no good, pure trash, then they decided to change the meaning of the word "evolution" in several dictionaries, saying that the word "evolution" simply means "change".. But, it didn't work, because nobody bought the idea that returning back to smoke signals is an evolutionary step against our current cell phones, so the word "evolution" in Biology, and solely in Biology, and solely when is in reference to the changes in the species, this word "evolution" simply means "change with modification".

Still, this new "technical word" can't be used as the regular verb that implies changes from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex, then, everytime evolutionists say that such species "evolved" implying the meaning "changed with modification" are indeed commiting JARGON. Ha ha ha

But, the more laughable situation is that species indeed change with modifications... the problem for evolutionists is that the modifications are at last a degeneration of the species, this is to say, to be fully accurate about describing the modifications in those changes, the arrow of life for the species is through degeneration.

The whole species of the world have suffered degenerate steps from their primeval ancestors.

There is an arrow of life, and this arrow is what the Bible talks about, this arrow of degeneration of the species is what several ancient records talk about.

Evolutionists can't change no more, their last attempt to make their theory to survive has lost the last battle, they can't invent anything more, because they can't prove wrong the arrow of degeneration that leads the future of the species.

To attempt challenging the law of degeneration in species is like attempting against the law of gravity... you can make a temporary escape... but gravity will prevail over you... no doubt. Lol

See? scientists changed their minds continually because their theorical thoughts are just that, theorical thoughts, and their thoughts are not facts.

When is in reference to technology, scientists are having more success, but theories about our origins or about the origin of the universe... those theoeies are make belief stories, nothing but entertainment for people, and only ignorants or blind faith dudes believe in them as if they were real science.

 

pants on fire

 

That is the second time you have stated erroneously that I said something which I never did.
Your responses are getting more and more lame, and you attempts at ridicule is all you seem to have as your position becomes full of holes.

The Seven Patriarchs are the essence of Jewish traditions and they hold a special place in the rituals of the season's festivals.

 

It is not what I think, it is what it is, that lots of blind faith science dudes are so desperate to invest millions of dollars trying to prove the Bible wrong, and every attempt they made is debunked with solid facts, facts observed for free by others... lol

And, now that you have mentioned. look, do you know why the nuclear tests made over ground were suddenly stop by the US, the Soviet Union, England, France, China, Etc?

You don't? Don't worry about it. You do? Then, you'll know that the whole data obtained from C14 is not trustable as well, specially when it comes from the poles. (Facts rule, and you can't go against facts. )

Again, there is not an optical counting supporting thousands and thousands of "one ice core layer per year", the counting after several feet deep is made by computer calculations. This is how they count the layers because they can't be recognized by optical means. Do not evade this fact, it is counted by using a computer software where it is calculated the effect of the pressure of the higher ice core layers over the lower ice core layers. Period.