Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: Cesim

I"m sorry but you're wrong. In THEORY, it is correct, in practice not so much.. Allow me to expound on this for a bit.

Let's say that someone develops a test. Uses that test to develop a formula. They use that formula to support and develop a theory.

Other people use that formula and confirm the same results that the original inventor of the formula did. He uses that formula to develop a more complex algorithm and additional formula.

Other people in a slightly different but related field use THAT formula to confirm the same findings that the other person found, helping to confirm them and THEY develop a more complex formula that supports another theory...

Take that out to the Nth degree and you have a scientific paradigm similar to what we see in academia today.

It becomes a nice big circle jerk of supporting results...

AHHH but there's a problem.

In the original test and formula development, the results weren't QUITE conclusive, they had what is referred to as outlier data that was REMOVED from the results.

The supporting tests conducted by others also had OUTLIER data that was removed, both from the confirmation tests and their more complex tests further developing their additional theories.

And or the formulas were tweaked, (similar to how it was mentioned that the meter was distorted to support a constant constant), in order for these tests to show the results that they did.

It becomes a house of cards that CANNOT be allowed to be shown incorrect because the entire PARADIGM DEPENDS on it being considered accurate.

Thousands or tens of thousands of people rely on it to be accurate in order to keep their jobs, get funding etc...

Oh that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. People shelling out millions of dollars don't like to hear, might be, could be, supported by. They like to hear, IS, MUST BE, WILL BE.

It is the funding structure that has been setup that has mostly destroyed the credibility of the scientific paradigms and created a statement of fact where the scientific method does not allow for such.

Oh you'll see slight changes to the paradigms, but rarely if ever within a generation will you EVER see large paradigm shifts.

They just AREN'T allowed by the structure that has been put in place. It is a corrupt, and religious institution.

Jaden

3+a reply to: GetHyped

NOPE

By a sizeable margin.

Your religious fervor seems to be clouding your judgment.

I wonder how many of the paradigm supporters would be surprised to find out that it has been almost perfectly a fact in celestial mechanics that ALL the formula that predicts movements has had to be tweaked as soon as the length of measured movement has been surpassed???

IOW, If they have measured celestial movements for 40 years, and predicted 40 years out, they were pretty damn close to accurate. Once they got to 50 years out though, the new measured results didn't mete out, and the formulae that they used had to be tweaked in order to accurately predict the movements...Then they could measure accurately 50 years out with the new formula...

If you don't see the implications of what that means, I feel sorry for you, and you should NEVER call yourself a scientist.

This forces me to quote myself...

"The only historically accurate scientific fact is that science is NEVER currently accurate".

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: BO XIAN

I wasn't aware of what littlebylittle inferred in your quote of his, but it seems to support an idea I've been running around in my head for a while.

It was that if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct that as the universe expands, time speed up. IOW, as the Universe expands, space stretches, and as space stretches, time speeds up. We all know that the atomic clock experiments support the idea, (notice I didn't say prove) that time dilation occurs in space dense locals, i.e. gravity wells. So it would stand to reason that in the early universe, space would be more compacted, time would move MUCH slower.

In an expanded universe, space would be stretched, time would move faster.

Jaden

I am not sure if I think of this in a logical way since I always get confused on how 3D+1T will handle analogue time and space. It becomes easier if I go digital since then I have a smallest quantified time scale and quantified distance scale even if the scale changes from an outside perspective. And I do not say this means it is digital, only that I have an easier time making visualization if it is not analogue.

How do you objective measure something from within.

The 3D+1T that I am thinking of now:
1 An expanding infinite 3D+1T where quantified time and distance is set. Information data increasing
2 An expanding infinite 3D+1T where quantified time and distance is not set but are changing. Information data constant even if the data points are further apart.
3 A curved constant space where 3D+1T are curved in at every dimension that is being filled. Information data constant and quantified time and distance is set.

I have an easier time to visualize the 3rd. But that is probably only a limit of my mind. I am not very good at visualizing from my point of view.

a reply to: DJW001

Well the answer is yes to all for Christianity, but in practice it is reduced to blind faith by almost all followers...same for science and it's blind followers. You have to have real knowledge and the intellect to contectualise the date. Not many proponents of either disciplines bother, just follow blindly.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

From my perspective, the third option there is probably closest to how I picture it as well.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I wonder how many of the paradigm supporters would be surprised to find out that it has been almost perfectly a fact in celestial mechanics that ALL the formula that predicts movements has had to be tweaked as soon as the length of measured movement has been surpassed???

IOW, If they have measured celestial movements for 40 years, and predicted 40 years out, they were pretty damn close to accurate. Once they got to 50 years out though, the new measured results didn't mete out, and the formulae that they used had to be tweaked in order to accurately predict the movements...Then they could measure accurately 50 years out with the new formula...

If you don't see the implications of what that means, I feel sorry for you, and you should NEVER call yourself a scientist.

This forces me to quote myself...

"The only historically accurate scientific fact is that science is NEVER currently accurate".

Jaden

VERY INTERESTING! THANKS!

Great points.

Certainly in my lifetime, science has been a VERY flexible, moving, persistently revised as old TRUTHS were trashed . . . "foundation" of "truth."

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Welllllll, you are on the borderline of my capacity to visualize! LOL.

Dr Chuck Missler talks about 3 year old children and quantum physicists are the only ones who can visualize extra dimensions.

LOL.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Let me ask you: as someone who claims to have a PhD, do you think that denying the science of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis is a rational, scientifically literate position to take?

a reply to: GetHyped

You are welcome to start a thread about that topic.

This thread is not about that issue.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Your lack of answer tells me all I need to know.

Enjoy your anti-intellectual thread with your scientifically illiterate bedfellows.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton
1) How old is the Earth?

Whether they were called Zeus and Hera or Adam and Eve, our historical records insist that our lineage comes from this first begotten couple. The perspective on Their son Cain (Kain in the case of Zeus/Hera) caused a divergence - the Greeks looked at Kain as the great founder of science and civilization whereas the Hebrews depicted him as an alienation from God because he relied on human invention rather than God's providence. True History is out there for anyone willing to do diligent study.

2) How did life in its current form come into existence?

Another loaded question. Let me give an example of how science at its best has finally come to the same conclusions as the biblical writers:

There were two trees in the middle of the garden: The Tree of life, and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9). Both were in the midst of the “Garden”, which is the Human body. The trees in the middle of our body is a reference to the spinal cord - although this also has outward implications as well, we will focus on the inside.

The autonomic nervous system is responsible for bodily functions that do not require our conscious input, such as our heartbeat. The autonomic nervous system is mostly located in our spine, in the midst of our body. The autonomic nervous system is considered the “reptilian brain”, because these are the dominant structures present in a reptile’s brain

The reptilian brain is divided into two sub-categories: The Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) and the Parasympathetic Nervous System (PNS). The PNS is responsible for rest and repair, and is vital to maintain the healthy human body. The SNS is responsible for fight or flight reflex, or in other words, coping with stressful situations. When one of these systems becomes more active, it causes the other to become less active, and vice versa.

The reptilian brain is manifest as the serpent in Genesis 3. The two trees in the midst of the Garden are the PNS (Parasympathetic nervous system - Tree of Life) and SNS (Sympathetic Nervous System - Tree of knowledge) of this reptilian brain located in the spine in the midst of our body. The PNS is the tree of life, because it perpetuates healing.

Essene Gospel – Book 3
“The Tree of Life that standeth in the middle of the Eternal Sea,
That is called, The Tree of Healing. The Tree of powerful Healing,
The Tree of all Healing,”

The SNS is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because it copes with stressful scenarios. When Adam and Eve activated the SNS, or ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they were surely to die. This is because the SNS causes the release of stress hormones to cope with stressful stimuli, but these same hormones cause bodily malfunction as a side-effect. It is well known by neurologists that activating the SNS lowers the expression of the PNS, and vice versa. Because they activated the SNS, the PNS would no longer work perfectly, and without a perfect repair system they were no longer immortal:

Genesis 3:22
“And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil (SNS); and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life (PNS), and eaten, and lived eternally,' “

Yet, science is still baffled as to why we die. Death is considered a disease because the body is evidently capable of indefinite repair - hence the promise of eternal life from Jesus and his leading us back to the tree of Life

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

a reply to: Masterjaden

If someone develops an experiment, the results of that experiment are tested thousands of times (after fully documenting everything about that experiment, crunching numbers/equations, explaining EVERYTHING) by independent scientists before it is an accepted theory. I understand what you're saying, but unless the core principals of the scientific method are ignored the experiment would never go any further. A theory is a pretty large claim in science, and it definitely isn't thrown around lightly in the scientific community.

The only way that I would say that your idea could be a possible outcome is if the scientific method isn't followed which would mean that no "science" is really taking place. If that is a variable placed into the equation (and it happens to be the case), then I absolutely agree with everything else you said. It's challenging to debate a completely hypothetical scenario though. Extreme numbers are sometimes removed from experimental data, but an explanation is included in scientific papers. The statistical analysis of why those numbers were deemed removable will always be included.

It's not like the criteria for creating a new theory is a simple one, and I believe that the over simplification of the scenario might lead to an over simplification of the scenario's outcome. If improper science is done, you will of course get a non-objective outcome.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Elaborate please, not sure what you are getting at there.

a reply to: cooperton

So "Bible says..." is your answer.

Pretty much what I expected. No wonder you desperately want bring science down to the same level as religious faith.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Oh maybe this is what you are talking about, got a source for this?

How about source anything you are saying? You are making some pretty hefty claims there bud.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

•The steps of the scientific method are to:

◦Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results

Media often likes to exploit scientific findings...most often through false correlation...for headline purposes.

People who drink Coffee have more babies!!!...and crap like that..where the actual science that is abused by the media said no such thing.

People are stupid...Science is real.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

So "Bible says..." is your answer.

Pretty much what I expected. No wonder you desperately want bring science down to the same level as religious faith.

No, I quoted plenty of scientific medical fact.

Are you too scientifically illiterate to understand the workings of the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system?

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: BO XIAN

People are stupid...Science is real.

No one is saying science isn't real. It is the deluded leaders of the theoretical faithwork of science that are the problem. They tout theory as fact and excommunicate anyone who disagrees.

a reply to: cooperton

No one says theory is fact except for you all to set up the strawman. Theory is an explanation, one that is supported by observation and experiments that can be reproduced that are then peer reviewed.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

So "Bible says..." is your answer.

Pretty much what I expected. No wonder you desperately want bring science down to the same level as religious faith.

No, I quoted plenty of scientific medical fact.

You posted a bizarre attempt to reconcile religious scripture with your own misunderstandings of animal biology prefaced with some mumbo jumbo that also manages to deny pretty much all of the fields of natural science.

Thank you for underscoring my original point:

can't say I'm terribly surprised to see the most vocal proponents in this thread also in other threads proclaiming that the earth is 6,000 years old, that some herb will cure you of all cancers, that spinning magnets will produce unlimited energy and other pseudoscientific claptrap.

Seems like people get upset when the findings of science run contrary to their magical beliefs.

BO XIAN, these are your bedfellows. Enjoy!