Atheism

you're comparing bleeding edge scientific theory at the edge of reality with finding stuff buried in the earth.

 

I wasn't aware that the scientific method made distinctions between the 2.

Are you saying that we currently know about everything that is buried in the earth?

Don't we make new discuveries all the time?

 

It doesn't. The evidence that has been collected using the scientific method in studying the two of them does.

 

If we can't use stuff found buried in the earth then throw out most of the "evidence" for macro evolution.

 

gravity is not a constant, it's a force. there's a gravitational constant, like so many other constants in science that converts from one unit to another. like radians is a natural measure of an angle and degrees is just multiplying that by a constant.

so if current physics can't explain the edge of the universe, does that mean it's all wrong?

 

Yeah and if Duke and UNC play and there is no spread I'm still going to pull for Duke but I know that either team could win.

 

because the number of other possibilities is limitless and untestable. science works by taking a hypothesis and devising an experiment to test that hypothesis. you can't test for god, so science presumes he doesn't exist.

 

We currently do not have a test for God.

But would you claim that radiation did not exist before there were geiger counters?

 

no, i'm saying it's an unfair comparison between absolute theory and objects you can pick up and hold.

 

i'm not saying stuff in the ground is not valid evidence, i'm saying it's a whole different kind of science than the purely theoretical science regarding fundamental forces and the edge of the universe. it's mundane. the intricacies of when exactly the item was created, who created it, what they had for lunch, etc. aren't important.