i want to start learn and believe more in science rather than religion
where should i start and who or what create us in science
welcome to the future my friend
>>510112
Oh that's easy.
Science believes that 20 billion years ago, nothing exploded, and became everything. And then 3.6 billion years ago, the Earth's surface cooled, and clouds formed from volcanic gasses and it caused rain. And then it rained on the rocks for billions of years and it formed a soup, and then the soup came alive, and formed the basis for all living things, including humans.
Science will teach you about how the eye, for instance, had to evolve slowly over billions of years, through trial and error, even though the Horseshoe crab has one of the most complex and sophisticated eyes in the animal kingdom, yet it's one of the earliest vertebrates to ever evolve. But the point is, things get better over time, things are evolving to be bigger, faster, stronger . . .
That why you can do an image search for any prehistoric version of a modern animal, be it a turtle, a dragonfly, a bear, any prehistoric version of a modern animal, and you can see that the prehistoric animals are much less evolved, so they're . . . a lot bigger . . . and stronger . . . and faster . . .
Now, nevermind all that, because you see, SCIENCE teaches that The continents were once all connected? even though technically they're still all connected, when you look underneath the oceans . . . but anyway, they were once all connected, and one time Africa and South America were connected, and that's why they look like matching puzzle pieces. Even though the size of Africa is shrunk down 40% to achieve that parity of size, look up true projections of Africa in maps . . .
But anyway, we know the continents were all connected because we see matching fossils at all the coastlines where they used to connect before they drifted apart. Even though you find the same matching fossils everywhere else on Earth as well. There's even fossils of clams and sea-life found on Mount Everest and throughout all the other mountain ranges of the world. Almost as if there was once a big flood.
Let's start with bettering our English.
>>510342
Is.. is this bait?
>>510342
Right here's where I suggest you start learning about science, son:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfffRl4RT4s
>>510342
Science got us to the moon.
if you think faith can do the same, jump off a tall building and start praying
>>510348
Probably not unfortunately, I was taught similar nonsense at a creationist school, right down to the marine fossils in the Himalayas = world wide flood bit.
>>510342
>singularity = nothing
Guys, science believes black holes are just big bottomless holes of nothing.
>>510348
Google anything that seems crazy.
Google search the fossilized clams on Mt. Everest. Google search the way most map projections grossly skew the sizes of continents like Africa. Google prehistoric animals, look at how everything has gotten smaller and weaker and more delicate, not better, faster, stronger.
Look at how the Grand Canyon was formed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE
>>510377
>The Himalayan range is one of the youngest mountain ranges on the planet and consists mostly of uplifted sedimentary
You understand that sedimentary rocks form under the ocean and obviously have marine fossils yea?
Evolution is in no way suggesting that everything gets 'better, faster, stronger' just that it adapts to the conditions, if there is abundant food, selection is likely to be for greater strength or fecundity etc, while in a famine or drought, being smaller and more efficient with resources would be selected for...
>>510377
no one is that a great flood took place anon. I just don't see where you are making the leap from a flood to " le spooky man in heaven watching everything that you do" meme
>>510365
But I love science!
Science is great!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkYDzILgtA
>>510391
>You understand that sedimentary rocks form under the ocean and obviously have marine fossils yea?
No, I don't understand how the fossils survived the uplifting process which involves the rock becoming superheated, super-pressurized magma.
How do the little fossilized jellyfish survive that process?
Seems like you got a hole in your theory, son. You better go find some new evidence.
>>510419
The rock which is exposed to high heat and pressure becomes metamorphic to some extent, the uplifting forces are non uniformly distributed and hence some rock would remain in the original sedimentary form rather than undergoing metamorphism
I'm not up for this debate now though, i'll leave you with http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
>>510419
also those are Crinoid fossils not jellyfish, their part of the echinoderms, like starfish and sea urchins.
>>510442
*they're
>>510448
no need to be a pedant
>>510112
Start with Charles Sanders Peirce
>>510442
Well, it came up under google image search of "jellyfish fossil," there are several other examples.
>>510431
And does that explain why these marine fossils are found uniformly distributed across the globe?
And have you REALLY looked at the Grand Canyon?
Believing in science rather than religion is like satisfying your sex drive by eating.
>>510342
>20 billion years ago nothing exploded
Literally wrong in the first 6 words.
Consider me triggered.
The idea of a god is not that farfetched. The idea of a judeo-christian god is idiotic. No argument for god actually gives a good reason for the god in the Bible.
>>510112
I would start with learning english.
>>510112
science is the following.
Take 2 of one thing. change one thing about said thing and keep the other same.
Compare it and see what changes.
Its pretty simple stuff.
Modernists want you to denounce religion in favor of this ideology.
This is absurd.
Science is logically self defeating as an ideology right from the get go.
1. Science is the only source of truth in the universe
2. Science can't prove statement one scientifically / Science is not the only source of truth in the universe.
Literally 100 level philosophy here guys.
Again.
Suppose you want to say scientifically that T-Rex lived in Indiana. You find T-rex in Michigan and Kentucky. But in Indiana there was a geological event that destroyed the fossils during the era T-rex was alive.
Now it is scientifically false that T-rex lived in Indiana despite it being reasonable to think so.
Science is useful for learning about material things. But as an ideology and source of knowledge it is weak and cannot stand alone.
ITs a meme religion at this point. Any true philosophical argument it had died with verificationism in the 40s.
>>510535
Science is not "a thing" its the whole collection of human activities based on searching truth in nature and its method has evolved accordingly into what it is today.
And therefore it has become one of the most successful systems used to verify, understand and predict nature and has shed light into many questions often just resolved by religion.
And it has had such massive succes that it is sensible to think humans can have a basis of truth and knowledge only based by what it falsifiable and empirical. You just went to a stupid creationist school that because it shows some flaws with the method (even if any scientist worth his salt should know them) it contradicts the whole system who has brought the infrastructure so you can spout your retarded shit here.
>>510118
Reddit get out
>>510470
This 2bh
It is not one or the other, only retards believe that
Read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan
Then
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Khun
Both are easy to read, largely available in english language and will give you a quick start on science and the construction of knowledge
>>510612
>read reddit by reddit
>>510470
>he hasn't heard of vore fetish
Oh to be young and naive again...
Modern Science isnt even about finding what's true anymore, it's just about finding what works. Most modern theories dont even match up with each other yet they are both presented as true
>>510112
>>510118
>>510342
>Hawking and Mlodinow, in the chapter of their book called “The Theory of Everything,” quote Albert Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” In response, Hawking and Mlodinow offer this crashing banality: “The universe is comprehensible because it is governed by scientific laws; that is to say, its behavior can be modeled.” Later, the authors invite us to give ourselves a collective pat on the back: “The fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” Great triumph or no, none of this addresses Einstein’s paradox, because no explanation is offered as to why our universe is “governed by scientific laws.”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
E. is right indeed. The gap has widened in a century. hawking is just like the dawkins of physics
people think that the foremost questions in science is what is space, time, temperature, quarks and so on. No, the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
