What drives those of Faith to ignore Scientific Facts?

I dunno,, could it have some to do with their brains being hard wired? Look back through history. Many people were burnt at the stake for heresy for believing in science rather than the church.

Maybe this goes back to Medieval days.

 

[video=youtube;szBTl3S24MY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY[/video]

Not all scientists agree...

 

Perhaps at one time this was true but we have Practical Applications today of Evolution based Biotech and Genetic Engineering.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

This guy is a Mental Midget.

AboveAlpha

 

Maybe,, but there are times when people just don't want to believe even if the truth sat up and bit them on the arse. Human nature I guess.

 

Yes....this is what I have a hard time understanding...but I guess everyone is different.

AboveAlpha

 

Look, if you need somebody to be a patsy for you to externalize your own paranoia, I'm not the droid you're looking for. What I'm saying is that you need to scrutinize everything, not just what the scientists are saying, but the scientists themselves. It's all about maintaining the absolute highest standards of excellence humanly possible, otherwise (*)(*)(*)(*) gets sloppy and snake oil salesmen win the day.

 

So you claim, but I'm skeptical. My gut instincts supersede all rhetoric I encounter, and that's a fact.

 

What a load of (*)(*)(*)(*). Political aspects of the theory of Evolution?....are those like the political aspects of Gravity?

 

A fact is something known to be true. As such, it can be a deduction from other facts if the deduction process is without error, but no fact can ever be a deduction from an unverifiable assumption. This being the case, no assertion about the age of the Earth which is presented as a deduction from present day observations can be considered a fact, since the deduction rests on the unverifiable assumption that the applicable physical laws have remained unchanged during the supposed time span of Earth's existence.

 

You ever heard of Scopes, sucker?

 

Isn't it science that is now recognizing the real possibility of parallel Universes, and other dimensions. Isn't it Quantum mechanics that falls apart in a black hole,,,a singularity. Isn't it science that has most scientists agreeing there is no such thing as ''nothing'', at least not before the ''Big Bang''
[That may or may not have been such a big Bang at all.]

I question everything, everybody should. Much of science is just plain theory, and often disproved at that,,,Hawkins? information vanishing? So is it any wonder these same people point to much of faith as theory as well. Faith is many things to many people, it's not a square peg in a square hole.

In other words,,our math does not always work

 

exactly. and we adapt as the need arises. we embrace each and every new possibility which presents itself. that's what science (and maths) is and does. as you say, question everything.

 

Back up my claim, or what? All I see are (*). You violate the forum rules with your flame-bait posts in a prissy fashion, and I get an infraction for being entertaining. Something's wrong with this site. Now, I've reported it, and I've given adequate time for the moderators to respond, nothing yet so goodbye losers. I WIN. Muwahaha!!!

 

The answer concern the concept of Social Paradigms.

The seven fundamental social institution in every society create the social forces that hold that society together.
These institutions are all founded upon axioms or basic arguments that both established them and have been sustaining them.

A good example of a paradigm would be the Swiss Watch Manufacturing economic that disappeared when digital watches were invented.
The Swiss though they were novelty items and never imagined they would replace the hand made precision watches they were so proud of for centuries.

The Swiss just could not change their mind.
They were blind and deaf to the truth because their whole economic institution was based upon the belief that quality hand crafted expensive time pieces were forever.

Churches are like this too.
The RCC would not change when Galilleo appeared and present his evidence to support the truth.
The end was Protestants moved out and formed their own churches.

 

You represent the same kind of fixed thinking but on the other side of the "Young Earthers."

You will be unable to see that Genesis can be read to correspond to science.

Obviously, the Big Bang Theory of 1940 corresponds to Gen 1:1,... "In the beginning,"... which was with a big bang,...
And the fact that visible light did not appear across the universe at first, but came 400 million years after a long Cosmic Dark Age, when starts first formed.

Verse by verse we can easily see that Genesis doesn't contract science facts, unless we are trapped in a paradigm that has told us it does.

 

Nicely said crank....

 

thanks, fellow dog lover

woof

 

First let me say that such now PROVEN FACTS such as EVOLUTION have absolutely no conflict in a persons belief in a GOD.

Saying that.....I can say with 100% accuracy and certainty that EVOLUTION IS A FACT....because we not only use Practical Applications of it everyday....but we can also VISUALLY SEE IT HAPPENING to Bacteria that are exposed to different Toxins as they adapt and those that live reproduce via Mitosis passing down the specific stronger Genetic Traits that allowed them to survive to their reproduced by Mitosis twin.

This is all EVOLUTION is....survival of the Fittest.....the passing down of stronger genetic traits after reproduction....and the occasional MUTATION caused by various Toxins or Chemical Reaction driven by Solar Radiation or other things.

AboveAlpha

 

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]
The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.


Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated.[19] Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay.[19] If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.[19] Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Our dating of how old the Earth is has become HIGHLY ACCURATE at 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.

Unlike using Carbon-14 which is only used as a Radioactive Dating technique for either former Carbon based life or materials comprised once of Carbon based life.....a different Radioactive Isotopes is used to date Rock and Minerals.

Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated.[19] Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay.[19] If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.[19] Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.

Now this method of dating the Earth is highly accurate and cannot be argued against as flawed or inaccurate nor can YOUR ARGUMENT SPECIFIC TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME.....be used as if this was so then our SUN and all the STARS and GALAXIES in our Divergent Universal State....as many of these Universal Constructs were developed BEFORE the existence of Earth and thus if the Physical Universal Natural Laws were different in the past....these Universal Constructs WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH EARTHS CONSTRUCT NOR WOULD THEY EVEN EXIST AS WE SEE THEM NOW.


I enjoy a good debate but what you have presented as an argument in favor of the Earth not being over 4.5 Billion Years Old is simply flawed and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS.

AboveAlpha

 

Rather than slog through all that tedious tripe, I believe I'll just go ahead and assume you didn't understand a word I said. I hope you find that satisfactory.

I think you enjoy lecturing to an imaginary audience a lot more.

 

F. E. A. R.
Fear of Jesus/Allah.

- - - Updated - - -

It just proves that the Bible/Qur'an are wrong, period. So they are not divinely inspired. So people can stop fearing/praying to "god".

 

THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED.....A fact is something known to be true. As such, it can be a deduction from other facts if the deduction process is without error, but no fact can ever be a deduction from an unverifiable assumption. This being the case, no assertion about the age of the Earth which is presented as a deduction from present day observations can be considered a fact, since the deduction rests on the unverifiable assumption that the applicable physical laws have remained unchanged during the supposed time span of Earth's existence

THIS is the part of what you posted quoted above that is incorrect..... the deduction rests on the unverifiable assumption that the applicable physical laws have remained unchanged during the supposed time span of Earth's existence.....end quote yguy.

We are NOT ASSUMING that the physical laws of the Universe have remained unchanged over the time specific to any extent that would not allow us to properly calculate the Earth's age by using RADIOMETRIC AGE DATING.....AS WE KNOW AS A FACT NO CHANGE OF UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL LAWS TO ANY EXTENT THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO PROPERLY CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH BY USING RADIOMETRIC AGE DATING TO WITHIN PLUS OR MINUS 0.05 BILLION YEARS OCCURRED!!!!

THIS IS A FACT.

How do we know it is a fact?

Because the lack of any drastic or substantial of change in the Physical Natural Laws of our Universe are demonstrated, consistent, specific and reflected in the construct, existence, makeup and ability of other Celestial Bodies and Constructs that are older than the Earth and existed before Earth developed BUT WOULD NOW BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN CONSTRUCT, ABILITY, MAKEUP AND EXISTENCE IF THE UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL LAWS HAD BEEN DIFFERENT TO ANY EXTENT ALREADY PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

Now....EVERYTHING I have stated is a verifiable FACT and proven by Logic, Physics, Mathematics and by using Comparative Celestial Bodies and Constructs which completely disprove your statement.

You could have presented a VIABLE argument in posting....Since we do know the Physical and Natural Universal Laws were different at the very beginning of our Universe at the moment of the Big Bang when Universal Creation and Expansion exceeded the Speed of Light due to not yet fully created Space-Time Geometric Dimensionality.....THEN....I would AGREE with you.

But the Universe is MUCH OLDER THAN 4.5 BILLION YEARS and at the time of Earth's development 4.5 billion years ago.....until now....there has not been any amount of change in Universal Physical and Natural Laws that would make our calculated age of the Earth by Radiometric Age Dating greater than the plus or minus .05% in fact the changes are so slight it would effect our Radiometric Dating by such an infinitesimal amount it would not be worth calculating never mind mentioning or posting or basing an entire argument upon it.

AboveAlpha

 

And we know that how, exactly?

I'm afraid any such claim from one who insists that Quantum Evolution is a fact is not to be taken seriously.

 

I will explain how this is an easily proven FACT.

IF.....the Universal Laws of Physics and Nature were different to any extend consistent with having the ability to throw off our calculations of the age of the Earth to any amount of time greater than stated....0.05%....and in reality it is much smaller than this....it would mean our current Gravitational Constant specific to creating a proportional increase in Gravitic attraction specific to an increase in Mass and diameter or center of Gravity of a Celestial Body.

If this was different in the past our SUN and all the Stars in the Universe would not have characteristics that are applicable to comparison with all known Celestial Bodies and Galactic Constructs as well as Dark Matter distribution and filaments which are spread out through our Universe and have Galactic Clusters and Galactic Groupings stationed upon these Dark Matter Filaments.....and be applicable for comparison with the development and creation of the Earth and it's Planetary Geometry, Mass Distribution, Center of Gravity and how all of this is specific to the INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF GRAVITY.

Because of the Inverse Square Law....similar to Earth, right? Well, Mars is actually a tiny little world. The diameter of Mars is 6,800 km across. This is 53% the diameter of Earth. And then consider the mass of Mars. It has only 10% the mass of Earth. Because of the small diameter and low mass, the surface gravity on Mars is only 38% the gravity on Earth. If you weighed 100 kg on Earth, you would weigh 38 kg on Mars.

Now if the laws of Physics in our Universe were different long ago when perhaps another much older thn our Sun local star was existing....we would now be able to to calculate these different Laws of Physics and to what extent they changed and when they changed and for how long.....because we know they changed at the beginning of the first Billion Years as our Universe was expanding faster than Light and we can use Hubble to see to the edge of our Universe and see irregular constructed and developed Galaxies that are almost as old as our Universe.

AboveAlpha

 

Do you know a screed from a scrod? Hint: that was a screed.