That one always annoyed me. The whole point of science is it is never 'settled'.
And as for climate change, the earth's climate has always been changing, violently. In fact, the era of relative stability we are currently in is astonishingly, mind bogglingly rare in terms of the earth's history.
Edit:
The seas turned red long ago when there was a high amount of iron in the seas. It was like that for a long time, relative to us, before the contents had changed enough that it shifted back to blue.
The moon was hit by a meteor shower many centuries ago. It looked like it was on fire. Many people freaked out. Some people deny it ever happened. But different people across the world independently wrote about it.
On that note: Graph on Graph: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection graph (Figure 16-1 Total Acreage burned) vs ‘Heat Wave Magnitude Index Daily’ graph from the ‘2017 National Climate Assessment’ (US data). Overlay of two graphs thanks to Tony Heller. https://i.imgur.com/CBQp7zv.png
The same applies to the age of the earth. There are many scientists that believe the age of the earth is significantly shorter than taught currently. Scientists from all backgrounds, biology, geology, astronomy... They all have valid evidence and theories, however, they are shunned and censored from the scientific community by people that hate God with a passion.
So, not a biblical source, but it's true. The age of the earth is really hard to determine.
This is because of plate tectonics: after enough time, continental plates "recycle" and any rocks close enough to the surface for us to study eventually get replaced with newer rocks.
I'm not sold on the ~6k "biblical" age of the Earth, the methodology was sketchy at best and there's plenty of evidence that [a|the] Great Flood occurred around 10-12kya.
That said I think modern archeology's timelines are full of horseshit and civilization goes back at least twice as far as is commonly accepted, and one or more races of giants did exist.
I'm also Catholic, and while we pretty much invented Biblical Autism, we apply it in vastly different ways than the American protestant movements.
There a great German channel who proposed that civilizations goes back 60,000 years to the earliest temple ever recorded. It’s something like kurtzsgt in a nutshell.
To be fair to the channel, it might have been 600,000 and not 60,000. It’s been more than a year since I saw their bit about it.
On another note, when you say objects what do you mean? Like a knife, spear or some other primitive tool? Kurtzgt uses the earliest temples as the marker for the beginning of civilization and I think that makes sense. I wouldn’t consider nomadic hunter-gatherers to be civilization, I consider permanent structures to be a basic part of civilization.
You are free to question the "age" of Earth, but then you have to face the following questions:
How comes the theory is so tightly related to Christian belief? Does it not imply an inherent bias, given that there are many other religions with their own views?
What does "age" mean? Does it mean the Earth was created at that point or that it was became inhabitable by life forms, animals or humans?
What was Earth before his "age" began? Was it a "barren" planet? Or space dust, some mass in a star or nothing? What caused the shift from "before" to "after"?
How do you explain evolution that is a natural process that requires no intelligent planning and control, but only the survival & reproduction of life forms to optimize large scale adaptation, which spans from hundreds (for low level adaptation) to millions (for major forms of adaptation) of years?
What is the motivation to question the "age" of Earth and what would be the consequence? And given that the existing theory is quite logically plausible and indicates a long spanning shifting of conditions on Earth and no "sudden" emergence of species without necessitating any intelligent intervention, what is supposedly wrong with it?
There are endless books on the topics you are asking about which go into great detail on these subjects, more so than I'm able or willing to here. I will make these comments, and acknowledge that satisfactory responses to all of these questions are in the link above. Answers to these kinds of questions require individual determination and personal research, not a short reply from a stranger:
How comes the theory is so tightly related to Christian belief? Does it not imply an inherent bias, given that there are many other religions with their own views? On the same note, evolutionists also have an inherent bias which routinely & severely impacts their ability view evidence from different perspectives. They have an inherent bias that there is no creator and that the world and universe were created in natural ways. They will reject and shut out any alternate perspectives.
They have an inherent bias that there is no creator and that the world and universe were created in natural ways.
But that would necessitate a belief as a premise, as the creation of God can never be proven or reproduced. That is not sufficient for a scientific basis.
And even then, why isn't it possible that God created the universe (or only the Earth) with the intent to create humans at the end of a process spanning billions of years? Assuming omniscience and omnipotence, that would be possible. The mere mechanism of genetics and evolution are exceptionally genius as it's a self-regulating system and ultimately created humans.
Again, spend some time on these articles if you are interested in the subject, as these questions are all answered in ways better than I can explain.
But that would necessitate a belief as a premise
And this is what I just explained about evolutionists, that the have a belief as a premise. A belief that there is no creator and that the earth and universe are made in non-supernatural ways. It's preciously the same scenario that you are attacking.
I’m going to conduct a study of whether gravity is real with a hypothesis that it isn’t. It may be wasted effort if I support the established theory, but dang it, it’s my money and time to waste if I want to try.
You're joking but gravity the least understood force in nature. The greatest minds in history have grappled with it: Newton, Einstein, and what's his face.
Exactly. We know it exists, and that it has to do with mass, as all objects with mass exert a force on each other, but we still have no idea WHY. We can tell you perfectly HOW it works, but not why.
Isn't that great? I fucking love it. I want to die and ask God about that, and He says something like "Well, Space is actually five dimensional, and massive objects press 'down' on the surface of space itself in the fourth and fifth dimensions. I just made you guys deficient, not having the senses needed to see that clearly obvious truth. But it's really as simple as balls of different weights on a mattress or a trampoline. It's SO obvious, you guys are just stupid."
If you're up for a mind twist, go to Youtube and watch a video called "the tenth dimension." Among the narrator's examples, he describes a two-dimensional creature that he calls "A flatlander" which is as flat as a playing card, and how confusing our three-dimensional world would look like to a two-dimensional creature. This provides the metaphor on how incomprehensible a fifth or sixth dimensional world would look to us. And you can further surmise that a creature that could exist and fully experience six or seven dimensions (let alone all ten) would be as omnipotent as G-d.
In fact, there's actually a scene in that movie.... what was it called, Minority Report? First guy rolls a ball down a table, the second guy catches it.
"Why'd you catch it?"
"It was going to roll off the table."
"How did you know?"
If we can see the table that the flatlander travels across and see his past, present, and future at a single glance....
Suppose G-d looks at our lives and sees our past, present, and future at a single glance, simply by existing beyond the dimension of Time?
I've actually seen that! Ever since, I've been annoyed when people can't think beyond basic momentary linearity. Later on, when I dabbled in writing, I'd liken the concept to the characters on the page. When someone opens my book, and reads page one, he encounters a farmer, on a farm, farming. If you were to ask the character who he is, he'd say he's a farmer. If you'd ask the reader who he is, he'd say the character is a farmer now, but may know that in the character's already-written future he may well become someone else. If you asked ME, who contains knowledge and godlike control over that character's entire existence, from his unwritten childhood to his unwritten latter years, I'd be able to give you at least 8 wildly different examples, all correct, depending on what point in his "time" I'm talking about, even though all of those instances of his timeline exist simultaneously for me, though many of them are still the unwritten "future" for the character as well as any readers.
Whenever I encounter a frothing, angry atheist, I always try to point out that their vehement, almost violent refusal in even the POSSIBILITY of a Deity is the absolute height of human hubris. They are loudly declaring "if I can not understand it, it can not exist," which is tantamount to saying "I am of supreme mind." Were I not the devout Christian that I am, I would hope I'd be at least intelligent enough to say "Well, I don't THINK so, but I lack absolute knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality, so I can not discount the possibility."
That's right. The Atheist mindset is that /I/ am the ultimate intellect. /I/ am the arbiter of morality. Let's say /I/ don't see anything wrong with, oh, abortion or gay relationships. (Never mind that /I/ may have been influenced by propagandists and advertisers who wanted to plant just that belief in my head.). Since /I/ do not see it, therefore the Bible /must/ be wrong.
The crux of serious religious contemplation is that you hold G-d -- and his Bible, his message -- as the highest truth. You might say: "I do not understand this commandment as to the prohibition of gay sexual behavior. But even though I don't, it's still in the book, and it is my responsibility to study it and figure out why. And if I CAN'T figure out why, I'll just have to assume I lack access to the right information.
In other words, the religious person places the highest morality outside of himself. The atheist puts the highest morality IN himself. The Atheist wishes to be G-d. The Atheist wants to be the one to decide what is good and what is evil, and not give that honor to a force outside of himself.
Which is exactly what the serpent promised Eve she could have if she ate the fruit.
Indeed. A tesseract is a 4-dimensional dot/line/square/cube progression object. It does not need to be 2ft x 2ft x 2ft x 5 minutes, that last dimension can be "feet" too, just in a way we find hard to process.
We are 3Dx1D creatures, space x time-wise. Cuboid space, linear time. At least, last I checked we were still linear time, but there WAS that incident where the Left claimed Gamergate caused WW2...
It could be, but Time is a really good illustration because we can't control it. We're all stuck in time like we're on one of those conveyer belts in an airport. It goes one way, and we can't step forward or back. And we don't even really recognize the motion, kind of like we don't feel the motion of the earth going around the sun.
We don't even know if the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same thing, or just happen to be related by the constant 1.
When we try to apply the understanding of gravity in General Relativity to particle physics, we see things that make no sense at all, and vice-versa. We have two great theoretical frameworks that agree with each other perfectly except when it comes to gravity.
Gravity isn't just the least understood -- it is the ENIGMA that makes physics interesting.
Even if it is beyond human comprehension, there is good in pursuing it. Perhaps something after us, something more than us, could use our work, stand on the shoulders of our then-long-lost giants, to grasp it.
Except hard sciences like chemistry or math. Climate and say psychology are soft sciences are impossible to settle. Oxygen and hydrogen make water and 1+1=2 but the patterns of weather being detected can change on a dime.
Math is more a modeling framework than a science. Science requires the whole iterative experimentation and analysis thing to happen, with the goal of finding out more about how physical processes work, while in the domain of pure math you can come up with purely-virtual constructs that can't exist in the natural game-space.
This doesn't imply it's a lesser discipline than physical sciences, just that it's a fundamentally different animal with different methodologies.
The thing I keep coming back to about math is that it has, thus far, proven to be incapable of bridging the gap between classical and quantum physics. I would only be willing to entertain the notion that math is "settled" once it is capable of fully bridging the uncertainty gap.
If you want to get really deep into it, and look to David Hume (one of the greatest philosophers to ever live), then there is absolutely nothing that we can be completely certain of, because you first require faith that it is even possible to know things.
Now, I recognize that I'm taking these things to the very farthest extremes, but my point is that there is not one single thing in this entire world that should be absolutely off limits to being questioned. That is what science is all about.
Beyond that, these retarded "ideas" are made up by total nitwits with absolutely no knowledge of the real world. They think giving someone a position and a title actually makes them equal to those who have earned it, and the price to get to the top of the pile is higher than most people are willing to pay.
At my company, regular employees work 40 hours, hardly ever have to work overtime, and have great job security if they stay with the company past the first year or two. Those that don't fit in usually leave. When I hear someone complain about how much the top management and executives earn, I point out that they all work 60-80 hours a week. Executives are expected to arrive an hour before everyone else, stay at least an hour later, and they rotate responsibility for being present on weekends when projects are going on. They also have to attend local charity events, sit on boards of other organizations, and travel to our various branches as well as on incentive vacation trips. So even their "free time" is devoted to the company.
When you have earned your way to the top with proven results and show that kind of dedication, it isn't about "privilege" or any other bullshit, it's about talent and desire. And to be frank, our top dogs have literally begged women and minorities to get on the path to the top and they privately express frustration that they can't get enough of them to buy in.
Jordan Peterson has some talks on that, about how incredibly stressful the life of a CEO is, and women not wanting that might just be a sign of their own intelligence.
When I was forced to listen to some Sociology "Science" it usually goes like this.
"Some people think sex is inborn... that biology makes men one way, and makes woman another way.
"But some theorists think that men are that way only because society pushes them to be that way, and women are their way only because society pushed them to be that way."
"Now that we know biological gender doesn't really exist and all sex roles are made by society...."
I swear. That was the train of thought. There was no argument why the second concept was proven and the first wasn't. Not even any evidence for to it. They just jumped to the third line on faith.
I have no FAITH in any of the soft "sciences" like Psychology or Psychiatry or Sociology. They all seek to describe human nature without the essential element of sin against GOD.
It's pretty repeatable as long as you don't care about racism or sexism or phobia-ism.
Brain scan, chemical assessment, hormone checks. Hey look, there's a divergence from a "normal" brain. In two sigma of population sampled, that divergence means "x". Testable. Repeatable. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be 43% memes, because there would be no testable or repeatable way to define the subject matter.
If I want to make someone saddened, should I give them a plush toy, or speak poorly of their deceased relatives? I bet I could make a repeatable, testable experiment that showcases how people's mental state is lowered more with insults than with gifts.
The problem isn't the science, it's the scientists.
Critiquing and debating scientific experiments in good faith requires agreement on a rational basis. But as long as people are born and people die, the argument is never over.
90% of good science is setting up a test of a hypothesis which is objective and whose results are repeatable. That is increasingly lacking as "scientists" are funded by those who only care about manipulating both the questions and the testing to achieve the desired outcome. And "scientists have proven to be as financially oriented as the mob.
Most leftists hate God so they feel empty and want to replace with a substitute so they worship junk science, people, obama, sanders, diversity, celebrities, media, social justice. Disagree with anything they say and they get upset and try to cancel you. That's their religion.
What pisses me off more than anything about this new “it’s science” argument is 99% of the time when it is used, there is no substance or data driven logic to back it up. Just, “the science says so” and if you don’t believe science then you are an idiot. And there is no arguing with anyone who does this either. It’s infuriating.
Yes, Idiot Cuomo who tweeted that Science has answers just embarrassed himself. No one who really understands the never-finished nature of all science would ever say anything to basic.
Woke is the new religion. It's based on faith and belief over facts and evidence. If you question it you will be shunned/shammed/fired/assaulted/killed. If you post evidence to the contrary it will be censored.
Yeah it’s all about optics. Then there’s also the potential for the story of genesis to be an early example of the telephone game or trying to maintain the structure of a story via word of mouth, since there is no historically understood concept of time to measure exactly what happened in what timeframe/period.
It doesn’t make it wrong, but more of a summary of events.
Then again I believe that all miraculous events in the Bible have logical explanations with the exception of the story pieces together by the gospels.
Yup. While it does not exist on Earth, I could conceive of an alien species that has chromosome triplets, or one where the female has a full chain, but needs an M1 chain which supplies half the other side's genetics, and an M2 chain which supplies the other remaining half, 0.5+0.25+0.25 = 1, in a species with MASSIVE sexual dimorphism (or trimorphism, as it may be). Such a system would have both advantages and disadvantages to ours, and while highly unlikely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, I could see a situation in which it could occur on some alien planet. So yes, it is perfectly fine to question if there are more than two genders. Perhaps such an evolution may come to pass in humans quite suddenly, so question away.
Your findings will show otherwise, but you shouldn't be stopped from checking in on it as long as you follow proper ethics.
The "sin" is saying "There IS infinite sexes, no arguments allowed", not in saying "we could do a double-blind test to check that.". Likewise, we know what goes up must come down... Unless you throw it really far up. We have general acceptances of everyday-level knowledge, and investigate the fringe cases, but if you wanted to recreate an old gravity experiment and showcase a feather and a lead weight in a vaccuum falling at the same rate, it's always a science fair crowd-pleaser, no one will poo poo you for re-treading and re-proving "known" science. Re-prove two sexes exist, do it as many times as you want.
"Top HHS official apologizes for saying scientists are politically motivated, considers medical leave."
Too funny! For speaking the truth he is forced to take medical leave. Is he being checked in to a psychiatric facility, perhaps at McGill University, for "treatment" of his "problem." Any chance he'll emerge intact or become someone like befuddled Biden.
Not even a good religion either. For christianity there are literal centuries worth of literature vof self questioning, reasoning, and philosophizing.
What we're seeing today is a system of CONTROL, not belief. Most of the people involved dont believe what they say, they never think that far ahead. They're just operating on a basic animal level. Repeating phrases and actions learned by rote from training.
Science comes up with an idea, and they don't go around trying to prove it. They go around trying to DISPROVE it. If your theory is Gravity you try to find ways around it. Something like gravity at best breaks down at a universal or quantum scale, but it is our inability to disprove its existence that shows it is there. If you aren't trying to disprove our own theory, its not that solid.
"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship." - Heinlein
Science is a method. Stop taking shit from people that refuse to work within that boundary. Posting links on social media is not science, it is retardation.
I tried telling some of those reddit teen atheist tards that the scientific method says you take your theory and you don't just question it - you try to disprove it, you assail it with every attack you can think of.
They just lost their goddamn minds and I think posted it in a 'Trumpies Hate Science' subreddit and screeeeeched at how i needed to take a 3rd grade science class.
Then again I was also deemed a 'Racist' for not believing in races of humans.
Actually religious and non-religious people are allowed to question and debate religion. I love a bible study about a challenging verse or a sermon that shows a new angle. I wish the left did treat science more like religion and not a propaganda tool.
IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!
That one always annoyed me. The whole point of science is it is never 'settled'.
And as for climate change, the earth's climate has always been changing, violently. In fact, the era of relative stability we are currently in is astonishingly, mind bogglingly rare in terms of the earth's history.
If we didn't question "settled science" we would still believe the sun goes around the earth
We have scientific "laws" which are about as close as you can get. Not a label used frivolously.
But our knowledge is limited and those ideas could get blown open in surprising ways still.
True, Earth’s seas were all red one time!
Edit: The seas turned red long ago when there was a high amount of iron in the seas. It was like that for a long time, relative to us, before the contents had changed enough that it shifted back to blue.
And the moon was on fire one time.
Moon is made of green cheese. 🌛
Fire? Is this suppose to be the time period after it was formed when the Earth and moon were molten chunks of rock?
The moon was hit by a meteor shower many centuries ago. It looked like it was on fire. Many people freaked out. Some people deny it ever happened. But different people across the world independently wrote about it.
On that note: Graph on Graph: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection graph (Figure 16-1 Total Acreage burned) vs ‘Heat Wave Magnitude Index Daily’ graph from the ‘2017 National Climate Assessment’ (US data). Overlay of two graphs thanks to Tony Heller. https://i.imgur.com/CBQp7zv.png
The same applies to the age of the earth. There are many scientists that believe the age of the earth is significantly shorter than taught currently. Scientists from all backgrounds, biology, geology, astronomy... They all have valid evidence and theories, however, they are shunned and censored from the scientific community by people that hate God with a passion.
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/
So, not a biblical source, but it's true. The age of the earth is really hard to determine.
This is because of plate tectonics: after enough time, continental plates "recycle" and any rocks close enough to the surface for us to study eventually get replaced with newer rocks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
I don't know how any of these "climate scientists" would know; since they all seem to have been born yesterday!
I'm not sold on the ~6k "biblical" age of the Earth, the methodology was sketchy at best and there's plenty of evidence that [a|the] Great Flood occurred around 10-12kya.
That said I think modern archeology's timelines are full of horseshit and civilization goes back at least twice as far as is commonly accepted, and one or more races of giants did exist.
I'm also Catholic, and while we pretty much invented Biblical Autism, we apply it in vastly different ways than the American protestant movements.
There a great German channel who proposed that civilizations goes back 60,000 years to the earliest temple ever recorded. It’s something like kurtzsgt in a nutshell.
We've found objects that date further back than 60,000 years.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/
To be fair to the channel, it might have been 600,000 and not 60,000. It’s been more than a year since I saw their bit about it.
On another note, when you say objects what do you mean? Like a knife, spear or some other primitive tool? Kurtzgt uses the earliest temples as the marker for the beginning of civilization and I think that makes sense. I wouldn’t consider nomadic hunter-gatherers to be civilization, I consider permanent structures to be a basic part of civilization.
You are free to question the "age" of Earth, but then you have to face the following questions:
There are endless books on the topics you are asking about which go into great detail on these subjects, more so than I'm able or willing to here. I will make these comments, and acknowledge that satisfactory responses to all of these questions are in the link above. Answers to these kinds of questions require individual determination and personal research, not a short reply from a stranger:
But that would necessitate a belief as a premise, as the creation of God can never be proven or reproduced. That is not sufficient for a scientific basis.
And even then, why isn't it possible that God created the universe (or only the Earth) with the intent to create humans at the end of a process spanning billions of years? Assuming omniscience and omnipotence, that would be possible. The mere mechanism of genetics and evolution are exceptionally genius as it's a self-regulating system and ultimately created humans.
I think this is a more plausible approach.
Again, spend some time on these articles if you are interested in the subject, as these questions are all answered in ways better than I can explain.
And this is what I just explained about evolutionists, that the have a belief as a premise. A belief that there is no creator and that the earth and universe are made in non-supernatural ways. It's preciously the same scenario that you are attacking.
That doctors are afraid to answer the question "What makes a man a and a woman a woman?" for fear of losing their jobs is all you need.
There is no such thing as 'settled science.'
I’m going to conduct a study of whether gravity is real with a hypothesis that it isn’t. It may be wasted effort if I support the established theory, but dang it, it’s my money and time to waste if I want to try.
You're joking but gravity the least understood force in nature. The greatest minds in history have grappled with it: Newton, Einstein, and what's his face.
Exactly. We know it exists, and that it has to do with mass, as all objects with mass exert a force on each other, but we still have no idea WHY. We can tell you perfectly HOW it works, but not why.
Isn't that great? I fucking love it. I want to die and ask God about that, and He says something like "Well, Space is actually five dimensional, and massive objects press 'down' on the surface of space itself in the fourth and fifth dimensions. I just made you guys deficient, not having the senses needed to see that clearly obvious truth. But it's really as simple as balls of different weights on a mattress or a trampoline. It's SO obvious, you guys are just stupid."
If you're up for a mind twist, go to Youtube and watch a video called "the tenth dimension." Among the narrator's examples, he describes a two-dimensional creature that he calls "A flatlander" which is as flat as a playing card, and how confusing our three-dimensional world would look like to a two-dimensional creature. This provides the metaphor on how incomprehensible a fifth or sixth dimensional world would look to us. And you can further surmise that a creature that could exist and fully experience six or seven dimensions (let alone all ten) would be as omnipotent as G-d.
In fact, there's actually a scene in that movie.... what was it called, Minority Report? First guy rolls a ball down a table, the second guy catches it.
"Why'd you catch it?" "It was going to roll off the table." "How did you know?"
If we can see the table that the flatlander travels across and see his past, present, and future at a single glance....
Suppose G-d looks at our lives and sees our past, present, and future at a single glance, simply by existing beyond the dimension of Time?
All right, that's enough.
The Flatland thought-experiment comes from a book called Flatland, written in the late 1800s.
You can read it here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf
Love Flatland.
Geometry nerd.
I've actually seen that! Ever since, I've been annoyed when people can't think beyond basic momentary linearity. Later on, when I dabbled in writing, I'd liken the concept to the characters on the page. When someone opens my book, and reads page one, he encounters a farmer, on a farm, farming. If you were to ask the character who he is, he'd say he's a farmer. If you'd ask the reader who he is, he'd say the character is a farmer now, but may know that in the character's already-written future he may well become someone else. If you asked ME, who contains knowledge and godlike control over that character's entire existence, from his unwritten childhood to his unwritten latter years, I'd be able to give you at least 8 wildly different examples, all correct, depending on what point in his "time" I'm talking about, even though all of those instances of his timeline exist simultaneously for me, though many of them are still the unwritten "future" for the character as well as any readers.
Whenever I encounter a frothing, angry atheist, I always try to point out that their vehement, almost violent refusal in even the POSSIBILITY of a Deity is the absolute height of human hubris. They are loudly declaring "if I can not understand it, it can not exist," which is tantamount to saying "I am of supreme mind." Were I not the devout Christian that I am, I would hope I'd be at least intelligent enough to say "Well, I don't THINK so, but I lack absolute knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality, so I can not discount the possibility."
That's right. The Atheist mindset is that /I/ am the ultimate intellect. /I/ am the arbiter of morality. Let's say /I/ don't see anything wrong with, oh, abortion or gay relationships. (Never mind that /I/ may have been influenced by propagandists and advertisers who wanted to plant just that belief in my head.). Since /I/ do not see it, therefore the Bible /must/ be wrong.
The crux of serious religious contemplation is that you hold G-d -- and his Bible, his message -- as the highest truth. You might say: "I do not understand this commandment as to the prohibition of gay sexual behavior. But even though I don't, it's still in the book, and it is my responsibility to study it and figure out why. And if I CAN'T figure out why, I'll just have to assume I lack access to the right information.
In other words, the religious person places the highest morality outside of himself. The atheist puts the highest morality IN himself. The Atheist wishes to be G-d. The Atheist wants to be the one to decide what is good and what is evil, and not give that honor to a force outside of himself.
Which is exactly what the serpent promised Eve she could have if she ate the fruit.
There can be temporal as well as spatial dimensions. A higher dimension doesn't necessarily imply time
Indeed. A tesseract is a 4-dimensional dot/line/square/cube progression object. It does not need to be 2ft x 2ft x 2ft x 5 minutes, that last dimension can be "feet" too, just in a way we find hard to process.
We are 3Dx1D creatures, space x time-wise. Cuboid space, linear time. At least, last I checked we were still linear time, but there WAS that incident where the Left claimed Gamergate caused WW2...
It could be, but Time is a really good illustration because we can't control it. We're all stuck in time like we're on one of those conveyer belts in an airport. It goes one way, and we can't step forward or back. And we don't even really recognize the motion, kind of like we don't feel the motion of the earth going around the sun.
Have we proven the existence of gravitons yet? Lol
We don't even know if the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same thing, or just happen to be related by the constant 1.
When we try to apply the understanding of gravity in General Relativity to particle physics, we see things that make no sense at all, and vice-versa. We have two great theoretical frameworks that agree with each other perfectly except when it comes to gravity.
Gravity isn't just the least understood -- it is the ENIGMA that makes physics interesting.
We don't know "HOW it works"
That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask why. What a silly assertion. There must be a why, the only question is are we capable of finding it.
Even if it is beyond human comprehension, there is good in pursuing it. Perhaps something after us, something more than us, could use our work, stand on the shoulders of our then-long-lost giants, to grasp it.
It becomes something you’d have to be really high to say, no one would understand you and it would be a meta reference to some group of other metas.
Re: Galaxy seeds. Shit makes no sense, but also does at the same time
Al Gore?
Exactly this. Gravity isn't actually solved/fully understood which is fascinating.
What’s his face? Oh yeah Burt reynolds
For the record, what's his face is a moron who uses bad math. He's only famous because of his disability.
Good for you! How come gravity on earth isn't always 9.8 m/s squared. And how does gravity fit into a unified field theory. Keep up the good work ;)
A realistic and quick way to test gravity is to climb out on the roof of a twenty story building and jump off.
Cheap, and easy. Take a stop watch with you, and it will stop when you get to the ground. This will help your further studies...
Even better way is to take a communist in a helicopter and do the same test.
Proud to be the first one to upvote this.
2nd, still really proud
That is shitty science. Repeatability is key. We must use larger sets. Start with ten thousand communists for a baseline.
This would also be a really poor test of gravity lmao
REJECTED
Ok then. My hypothesis is 'Magnets do what how?'
It may take some funding but I need a magnet (+)suit and a magnet landing pad (+) and a testing tower for paid volunteers to descend from.
It will be 93% successful.
I volunteer but only if my dick is attached to a (-)
SCIENCE!
Motherfuckas lying, and gettin’ me pissed
Fake news+Clown world
The death part is inconvenient. My wife disapproves. Something about wanting my bod. Can you test the jump and report back?
haha
Except hard sciences like chemistry or math. Climate and say psychology are soft sciences are impossible to settle. Oxygen and hydrogen make water and 1+1=2 but the patterns of weather being detected can change on a dime.
I agree, but there’s also possibility that Math has other dimensions to it that haven’t been fully exposed yet.
Math is more a modeling framework than a science. Science requires the whole iterative experimentation and analysis thing to happen, with the goal of finding out more about how physical processes work, while in the domain of pure math you can come up with purely-virtual constructs that can't exist in the natural game-space.
This doesn't imply it's a lesser discipline than physical sciences, just that it's a fundamentally different animal with different methodologies.
The thing I keep coming back to about math is that it has, thus far, proven to be incapable of bridging the gap between classical and quantum physics. I would only be willing to entertain the notion that math is "settled" once it is capable of fully bridging the uncertainty gap.
If you want to get really deep into it, and look to David Hume (one of the greatest philosophers to ever live), then there is absolutely nothing that we can be completely certain of, because you first require faith that it is even possible to know things.
Now, I recognize that I'm taking these things to the very farthest extremes, but my point is that there is not one single thing in this entire world that should be absolutely off limits to being questioned. That is what science is all about.
Beyond that, these retarded "ideas" are made up by total nitwits with absolutely no knowledge of the real world. They think giving someone a position and a title actually makes them equal to those who have earned it, and the price to get to the top of the pile is higher than most people are willing to pay.
At my company, regular employees work 40 hours, hardly ever have to work overtime, and have great job security if they stay with the company past the first year or two. Those that don't fit in usually leave. When I hear someone complain about how much the top management and executives earn, I point out that they all work 60-80 hours a week. Executives are expected to arrive an hour before everyone else, stay at least an hour later, and they rotate responsibility for being present on weekends when projects are going on. They also have to attend local charity events, sit on boards of other organizations, and travel to our various branches as well as on incentive vacation trips. So even their "free time" is devoted to the company.
When you have earned your way to the top with proven results and show that kind of dedication, it isn't about "privilege" or any other bullshit, it's about talent and desire. And to be frank, our top dogs have literally begged women and minorities to get on the path to the top and they privately express frustration that they can't get enough of them to buy in.
Jordan Peterson has some talks on that, about how incredibly stressful the life of a CEO is, and women not wanting that might just be a sign of their own intelligence.
When I was forced to listen to some Sociology "Science" it usually goes like this.
"Some people think sex is inborn... that biology makes men one way, and makes woman another way.
"But some theorists think that men are that way only because society pushes them to be that way, and women are their way only because society pushed them to be that way."
"Now that we know biological gender doesn't really exist and all sex roles are made by society...."
I swear. That was the train of thought. There was no argument why the second concept was proven and the first wasn't. Not even any evidence for to it. They just jumped to the third line on faith.
I have no FAITH in any of the soft "sciences" like Psychology or Psychiatry or Sociology. They all seek to describe human nature without the essential element of sin against GOD.
Soft doesn't mean easy. It is soft in that it isn't testable or repeatable. It's simply a belief system which changes with the whims of the group.
It's pretty repeatable as long as you don't care about racism or sexism or phobia-ism.
Brain scan, chemical assessment, hormone checks. Hey look, there's a divergence from a "normal" brain. In two sigma of population sampled, that divergence means "x". Testable. Repeatable. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be 43% memes, because there would be no testable or repeatable way to define the subject matter.
If I want to make someone saddened, should I give them a plush toy, or speak poorly of their deceased relatives? I bet I could make a repeatable, testable experiment that showcases how people's mental state is lowered more with insults than with gifts.
The problem isn't the science, it's the scientists.
It's both.
And on the whims of pharmaceutical marketing goals.
Can confirm, meds were my last resort on numerous occasions and they definitely helped me out of bad situations I otherwise couldn’t have done myself
I think this post refers to climate change and Wuflu but you’re completely correct.
Thank you! I constantly have to remind people that science is a METHOD, and not a system of beliefs.
And let’s not forget, science is built on inquiry. Any attempt to stifle inquiry is anti-science, and more characteristic of religion than science.
And it is maths all the way down.
Science. Is Never. Settled.
Critiquing and debating scientific experiments in good faith requires agreement on a rational basis. But as long as people are born and people die, the argument is never over.
90% of good science is setting up a test of a hypothesis which is objective and whose results are repeatable. That is increasingly lacking as "scientists" are funded by those who only care about manipulating both the questions and the testing to achieve the desired outcome. And "scientists have proven to be as financially oriented as the mob.
PhD student in CS checking in! Can confirm.
Most leftists hate God so they feel empty and want to replace with a substitute so they worship junk science, people, obama, sanders, diversity, celebrities, media, social justice. Disagree with anything they say and they get upset and try to cancel you. That's their religion.
What pisses me off more than anything about this new “it’s science” argument is 99% of the time when it is used, there is no substance or data driven logic to back it up. Just, “the science says so” and if you don’t believe science then you are an idiot. And there is no arguing with anyone who does this either. It’s infuriating.
Call it scientism, or more properly, marxism, or communism.
tH3 sCiEnC3 i5 s3tTl3d!
I love this.
Yes, Idiot Cuomo who tweeted that Science has answers just embarrassed himself. No one who really understands the never-finished nature of all science would ever say anything to basic.
I need a tshirt with this.
Needs more upvotes.
Critical thinking is incompatible with the NPC cult.
Woke is the new religion. It's based on faith and belief over facts and evidence. If you question it you will be shunned/shammed/fired/assaulted/killed. If you post evidence to the contrary it will be censored.
Yeah it’s all about optics. Then there’s also the potential for the story of genesis to be an early example of the telephone game or trying to maintain the structure of a story via word of mouth, since there is no historically understood concept of time to measure exactly what happened in what timeframe/period.
It doesn’t make it wrong, but more of a summary of events.
Then again I believe that all miraculous events in the Bible have logical explanations with the exception of the story pieces together by the gospels.
Devil's Advocate: If science is never settled then it's OK to question whether there are more than 2 genders, right?
Yup. While it does not exist on Earth, I could conceive of an alien species that has chromosome triplets, or one where the female has a full chain, but needs an M1 chain which supplies half the other side's genetics, and an M2 chain which supplies the other remaining half, 0.5+0.25+0.25 = 1, in a species with MASSIVE sexual dimorphism (or trimorphism, as it may be). Such a system would have both advantages and disadvantages to ours, and while highly unlikely from an anthropocentric viewpoint, I could see a situation in which it could occur on some alien planet. So yes, it is perfectly fine to question if there are more than two genders. Perhaps such an evolution may come to pass in humans quite suddenly, so question away.
Your findings will show otherwise, but you shouldn't be stopped from checking in on it as long as you follow proper ethics.
The "sin" is saying "There IS infinite sexes, no arguments allowed", not in saying "we could do a double-blind test to check that.". Likewise, we know what goes up must come down... Unless you throw it really far up. We have general acceptances of everyday-level knowledge, and investigate the fringe cases, but if you wanted to recreate an old gravity experiment and showcase a feather and a lead weight in a vaccuum falling at the same rate, it's always a science fair crowd-pleaser, no one will poo poo you for re-treading and re-proving "known" science. Re-prove two sexes exist, do it as many times as you want.
Love your answer, thank you!
DOGMA is not SCIENCE
Overpopulation wrecks the climate.
Everyone who cries about "climate change" is also for Open Borders.
"Top HHS official apologizes for saying scientists are politically motivated, considers medical leave."
Too funny! For speaking the truth he is forced to take medical leave. Is he being checked in to a psychiatric facility, perhaps at McGill University, for "treatment" of his "problem." Any chance he'll emerge intact or become someone like befuddled Biden.
He needs to be re-educated.
Science is Real! (Whatever that is supposed to mean)
Not even a good religion either. For christianity there are literal centuries worth of literature vof self questioning, reasoning, and philosophizing.
What we're seeing today is a system of CONTROL, not belief. Most of the people involved dont believe what they say, they never think that far ahead. They're just operating on a basic animal level. Repeating phrases and actions learned by rote from training.
Amen brother
Religion isn’t a pejorative.
They used to rule with religion. Now they rule with the religion of science.
Test hypothesis.
Erm but the science is "settled" didn't you know?
Exactly. It’s not THE science. It’s just science and we learn new things all the time by constant questioning.
Funny thing...
Christians will often say that questioning God is part of finding faith.
Kind of ironic, huh?
The motto of the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of sciences, means "Take nobody's word for it."
No ‘scientific method’, not science....period
Science comes up with an idea, and they don't go around trying to prove it. They go around trying to DISPROVE it. If your theory is Gravity you try to find ways around it. Something like gravity at best breaks down at a universal or quantum scale, but it is our inability to disprove its existence that shows it is there. If you aren't trying to disprove our own theory, its not that solid.
"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship." - Heinlein
Leftism is a religion.
To be fair, religion often encourages lots of questions and searching. This post seems to be lacking in understanding.
I was going to some Chabad services and I tried to come up with some of the craziest questions for the Rabbi as a game. He had fun with it too.
When they say science, they mean superstition...
Science is a method. Stop taking shit from people that refuse to work within that boundary. Posting links on social media is not science, it is retardation.
I tried telling some of those reddit teen atheist tards that the scientific method says you take your theory and you don't just question it - you try to disprove it, you assail it with every attack you can think of.
They just lost their goddamn minds and I think posted it in a 'Trumpies Hate Science' subreddit and screeeeeched at how i needed to take a 3rd grade science class.
Then again I was also deemed a 'Racist' for not believing in races of humans.
What religion? Admittedly, not all of them are welcoming to questions.
Actually religious and non-religious people are allowed to question and debate religion. I love a bible study about a challenging verse or a sermon that shows a new angle. I wish the left did treat science more like religion and not a propaganda tool.
Believe in science! Water is life! Those signs crack me up.