By my standards
:
:
Atheism entered immediately, logic would say aatheists here already want to be recognized as a religion.
Logic would say that, by definition, atheism is a lack of religious belief.
Calling atheism a religion is—what? …“
Assume A≠B...” What is the name for that kind of statement? Before we can proceed into a freshman course in Statics and Dynamics, it would appear that we would need to complete the foundations for junior high Geometry...how about: “
A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. ”
But your premises are false:
Atheists are not religious, therefore...FAIL.
Cool! Let's, for now, leave religion out of it, and discuss physics from a neutral perspective, on second thought, from the atheistic perspective.
(A) Your thesis drags religion in, and you opened in a forum on Religion. So no.
(B) There is no such thing as an atheist perspective on Physics, as this implies there is a theist-validated version of Physics. That requires us to open the Pandora's Box of pseudoscience, which has been eternally cast into hell where it shall remain until the God of your forefathers hands you the keys to the kingdom to go unlock it.
Ah. God matters in opening the thread, in declaring that telescope imagery confirms the fundamentalist (i.e., Genesis is not a myth) "perspective". But, in attempting to prosecute a deductive continuity to reasoning, we are allowed to pretend that the proposition is not requisite to the fundamental premise for this discussion. This is what we mean by Pseudoscience. It represents itself as valid, simply by covertly discarding essential truths along the way. So God will matter even as you pretend it is not the foregone conclusion you are attempting to “prove”.
Here are our first building blocks, the precursor environment is, we get along.
Classic mechanics: Everything to begin with. we'll build off of f = ma.
Solid Mechanics
Geological accretion
There are the first 3 references.
Cut to the chase: We understand accretion. Specifically, it has nothing to do with Genesis because the Caananites had no idea what accretion was.
Thus they invented God to explain phenomena for which they had no science. This is why your thread is so utterly bogus. You are in denial of this fundamental principle around which the world of science revolves.
Let's learn about why scientifically, then when the time is right, we'll review the whole OP.
We don't dispute accretion. What we dispute is your tactics and methods, including the presupposition that this validates a myth. We dispute your selective form of reasoning that prejudices the discussion towards overt Pseudoscience. We abhor the anti-Science war waged by Creation Scientists to lord over the impressionable minds of their innocent victims, and to undermine the just, honest and morally necessary doctrines of Scientific truth. We will not yield to this abuse no matter how innocuous the "disguise" you admitted to.
I promise to eventually go above and beyond what is necessary,
Promise, promises.
In God We Trust, all others pay cash. So far you are in default, and your dishonesty contaminates this attempt to steer an argument toward anything more than a manipulated result.
but before I can introduce "The Phone Book" (Thorne and Wheeler) these other areas, we need to agree on our fundamental understandings.
If that were the Bible Hubble confirms, then this would not be pseudoscience. That is why you are deferring the question of God.
Experts entered right in from the get go. Let's compare notes, derivatives, standard and non-standard deviations.
"non standard deviations" appears to be the language of pseudoscience. As long as you continue to insist on a proprietary language, all dialogue with you is doomed. Do you even know what standard deviation means, what the underlying philosophy is behind that field of mathematics? If you ascribe to Creation Science, then all discussion of probability theory is equally doomed, since fundamentalism requires us to replace all known stochastic processes with God, which is the most egregious violation of
Gravitation imaginable, and renders it an invalid reference for you to cite. So first you must admit that Nature is intrinsically random, and declare that you are not espousing a deterministic pretense. Otherwise you are asking is to pretend that a crank rant is worthy of scientific review.
Fair?
Yeah, what I said is fair. Let's go with what I said.
