James Webb challenge to existing models

[SelfSim]

As I understand it, gravity is Gm₁m₂/r² -- right?

Why are you asking me what you mean by 'gravity'?

I mean, more explicitly, in Newtonian physics, the equation describing the force which Newton called 'universal gravitation' takes the form of:

F = Gm₁m₂/r²;

where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

In General Relativity however, the gravitational force is a fictitious, (or pseudo), force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a linearly accelerating or rotating reference frame.

In, post#74, I provided references which showed that before Newton, 'gravity' didn't exist. The closest similar words came from the Old French 'gravité' meaning seriousness, thoughtfulness .. and directly from Latin 'gravitatem (nominative gravitas)', meaning weight, heaviness, pressure, or 'gravis', meaning heavy.

This is why your asking me what you meant is such a silly question. I have no idea what you mean by gravity until you, yourself declare your context and the meaning you hold for it in that context .. I'm not a mind reader, y'know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, more explicitly, in Newtonian physics, the equation describing the force which Newton called 'universal gravitation' takes the form of:

F = Gm₁m₂/r²;

where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

In General Relativity however, the gravitational force is a fictitious, (or pseudo), force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a linearly accelerating or rotating reference frame.

In, post#74, I provided references which showed that before Newton, 'gravity' didn't exist. The closest similar words came from the Old French 'gravité' meaning seriousness, thoughtfulness .. and directly from Latin 'gravitatem (nominative gravitas)', meaning weight, heaviness, pressure, or 'gravis', meaning heavy.

This is why your asking me what you meant is such a silly question. I have no idea what you mean by gravity until you, yourself declare your context and the meaning you hold for it in that context .. I'm not a mind reader, y'know.

Okay ... thanks.

 

[John of Seabeck]

Note:
John of Seabeck here:
This conversational is exceedingly important; and spiritually a good one for us all. Unfortunately the written format is exceedingly cumbersome.
I have copied it to a word format and represent it here I hope more cogently. If not, I apologize!
The format does permit COLORS and if we would utilize that access we would be able to distinguish points and individuals expressing those points much more clearly. Here is an example:

James Webb challenge to existing models
Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by mindlight, Oct 11, 2022.Tags: big bang early universe james webb
Page 4 of 5 < Prev12345Next > Yesterday at 10:48 AM#61
What authorities are those? How do they "prove," things?
Science does [PROBABILITIES], not “proof”.
Some things can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt,
leaving one only with “unreasonable” doubt. e.g., the Earth is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on.
Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not, and never can be** accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing time lapse photographs revealing that, about which we can only say so much.
Grand cosmological models and the theories surrounding the evolution of galaxies are less about facts, than about a fantastic “light show”, that testifies to the glory of God.
"Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!!
The universe is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine."

Haldane

Estrid
Well-Known Member
Hong Kong

mindlight said: ↑
ibid:
"The world is spherical and orbits the sun. Australia exists and when I flick the switch, the electric light comes on. Some things are real and some things, like the origins of life on earth or the beginnings of the universe, are not accessible to the scientific method. The James Webb telescope produces amazing pictures about which we can only say so much. Grand cosmological models and the theories about the evolution of galaxies are less about facts that a fantastic light show that testifies to the glory of God”.

Hans Blaster, United States, Atheist, Private

mindlight said: ↑
"Those fantastic things you dismiss are either well supported by data or this is exactly the data being sought to clear up any confusion.
Hans Blaster said: ↑
"What speculations are we considering here?
1. In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us.
2. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details.
3. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. [the MWB]
4. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments.
But the “creation event” we call “The Big Bang”, which dates the universe using the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. BUT, we have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any closer to THAT goal. It just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and frequently raise a few more doubts and questions.
"Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!!"
Yesterday at 10:56 AMR Yesterday at 10:59 AM#65
==========================================
Halbhh
mindlight said: ↑ “In this context, we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event; e.g. the M.W.B.
We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models.
We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any closer; it should show us how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raise a few more doubts and questions about how absolutely certain we are about our own environment.”

“Perhaps it's better to discuss these things with me, in a Christians Only section of the forum, as I have decades of background knowledge in astrophysics/cosmology (and a background in physics), and I won't just merely repeat an ideology or make simplistic arguments, etc., and it might be an interesting discussion”.

Yesterday at 10:59 AMReportGift+ QuoteReply
Yesterday at 11:18 AM#66
mindlight
Halbhh said:
“One more note about abiogenesis -- it happened if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?

“Nope .. Chemistry and Physics were developed by humans!”

At this point I [John of Seabeck had to intervene].
Chemistry and Physics [actually it should be physics and THEN chemistry] were PART of God’s creation and fine tuning founded on over 200 critically balanced constants!
Halbhh responded to the prior above my response, and I agree with his response

Halbhh responded
“A more accurate word is 'discovered', not “created by mankind.
Regardless of whether it's an old idea for someone or novel epistemology, the laws of physics already existed before we knew anything about them, and we can at best only slowly discern those already-existing laws, over time, gradually discovering them. We might even be just half way to the end point of having found them all; it's hard to say. Maybe 20%, maybe 70%. Hard to know until we finally get there.

Last edited: Yesterday at 1:07 PM

The 'laws of Physics existing already before we knew about them' is an untestable belief, when viewed from the scientific method perspective."

"It is inconsistent, (and thus unwise), to rely on beliefs in direct support of objectively formed arguments.


Yesterday at 1:55 PM#70


AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Supporter

“To say that “the 'laws of Physics existed already before we knew about them'” is an untestable belief, when viewed from the scientific method perspective.”
Again: I, John of Seabeck had to intervene at this point. The critical constants of the space-time universe; the one WE emerged into, and live in day to day, HAD to pre-exist the consolidation of what we see and objectively know to be our space-time universe [including life and al the galactic structures]. In short: without the fine tuned CONSTANTS of physics, you cannot HAVE physics; and without the physics that govern space-time, you cannot HAVE space-time, much less chemistry; and in particular, DNA -- LIFE, and thus "us"! It is just a “fact of life”, as it IS.

The conversation went on from “SelfSim to say:
“It is inconsistent, (and thus unwise), to rely on beliefs in direct support of objectively formed arguments.

Again: I, John of Seabeck had to intervene: SCIENCE does NOT rely on beliefs to support objectively formed arguments. SCIENCE forms objective arguments from DATA, NOT beliefs; and it that data which supports OUR arguments that God in all probability DID create spacetime! Probability to the tune of in excess of 1 x 10 < -40,000 or greater.

Did the law of gravity exist before Isaac Newton?
The Bible says it, that settles it. NO! SCIENCE says it; PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY say it, and they agree with the Bible!

Yesterday at 2:08 PM#71

SelfSim
Did the law of gravity exist before Isaac Newton?

Again: I, John of Seabeck had to put my 2 cents in: OBVIOUSLY the law of gravity [if it as such really is a LAW; DID exist prior to Newton, because the universe existed! Perhaps NOT our space-time universe; but the universe as a whole [another discussion entirely here!]. But without gravity and the laws that govern it, THERE WOULD BE NO SPACE-TIME UNIVERSE!

mindlight said: ↑
“In this context:
1. we know that redshift means stuff is moving away from us.
2. We can see clusters of lights far away that look very much like stars and even seem to obey the rules we can demonstrate in our own solar system and we can even make out some descriptive details.
3. We can hear a background echo of some great cosmic event. [the MWB].
4. We can play with fabulously complex mathematical models based on assumptions we can prove in our own environments.
5. But the Big Bang, the dating of the universe, the cosmological model, and theories about the evolution of the universe are just rationally consistent speculative models. We have no way of proving them and the James Webb telescope does not bring us any nearer, it just shows how marvelously beautiful and wonderful God's creation is and it raises a few more doubts and questions.
Let me emphasize yet again as other posters have stated science is not about proof.
Even though we humans weren't around to give a first-hand account of the Big Bang or have a near seat view of the distant galaxies JWST is imaging we are resourceful enough to produce falsifiable theories which makes predictions and can be tested.
General relativity and its application to the Big Bang model is actually fairly simple mathematically speaking, BUT on the other hand, the "fabulously complex mathematical models" involve quantum field theories. Quantum field theories have made significant inroads in our understanding of the very early universe a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Why? …Because in the very early history of the universe we surmise to be very small [SUBmicroscopic; "quantum sized"] which puts it in the field of particle physics [i.e. the microscopic] rather than cosmology [the very large, or macro-universe] …and it, itself [the “very large] IS ultimately based on quantum field theories.
We can use particle accelerators to reproduce [MODELS] of the ultra-high temperatures of the very early universe.
In 1983 particle physicists were finally able to reproduce these temperatures by recombining the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force. The electroweak force vanished from the universe nearly 14 billion years ago as the universe cooled down.
see: electroweak.png
While this example strictly speaking, is not about a theory supported by experiment, as it is the other way around: to improve our understanding of the early universe.
BB [Big bang] cosmology has made many predictions which are supported by observation. see: Big Bang un Wikipedia

Halbhh responded: We could ask just as well:
1. Did the consistent and independent reality Newton thought of as gravity exist before he discovered some things about it?
2. OR was it a construct only? …corresponding to reality some by luck [chance], liable to be shown completely inconsistent with unknown reality at any moment, perhaps then we might be unbound from the construct? …and who knows, maybe float up at random into the air? (Just being humorous, because the discussion can become boring)

SelfSim responded to Halbhh who previously said: ↑
"Newton's law is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. He assigned the word 'Gravity' the descriptive meaning given in his empirical formula. Prior to that, the word 'gravity' came from Old French gravité meaning seriousness, thoughtfulness .. and directly from Latin gravitatem (nominative gravitas) meaning weight, heaviness, pressure, from gravis: heavy.

Enter: AV1611VET "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"
Supporter
Baptist
Married
US-Republican
Yesterday at 4:40 PM#76 with SelfSim and AV1611VET who said: ↑

“So gravity came first, then later came a scientist (or scientists) to quantify gravity into a law -- right? Well if you meant: 'seriousness, thoughtfulness, weight, heaviness, pressure', (etc), then there's a slight chance I might agree .. but somehow I suspect that's not what you meant .. (groan!)

Yesterday at 5:18 PM#77, Astrophile, Newbie, United Kingdom, Atheist
Widowedmindlight said: ↑

"The world is spherical and orbits the sun. The Flat Earth Society denies the first, and 26% of modern Americans deny the second -http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says.
"If you reject scientific theories about cosmology and biological evolution, what grounds have you for accepting scientific theories about the shape of the Earth and its orbital motion?
AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIK Supporter responded: as apparently didi SelfSim: ↑
“Well if you meant: 'seriousness, thoughtfulness, weight, heaviness, pressure', (etc), then there's a slight chance I might agree .. but somehow I suspect that's not what you meant .. (groan!) As I understand it, gravity is Gm₁m₂/r² -- right? IF the Bible says it, that settles it.

SelfSim A non "-ist" and AV1611VET

Note:
John of Seabeck here:
This conversational is exceedingly important; and spiritually a good one for us all. Unfortunately the written format is exceedingly cumbersome.

I have copied it to a word format and represent it here I hope more cogently. If not, I apologize!
CLARITY and individuality is everything in this kind of discussion, and SINCE the format permits COLORS, we should use them to separate our comments an then we would be able to distinguish points, and individuals expressing those points much more clearly. If you go to the top of the page you will see a HALFMOON icon and if you click on that you will be able to format your response or comments in the COLOR or your choice.

John of Seabeck

 

[SelfSim]

Latest supernova based updates to standard cosmological model

The most precise accounting yet of dark energy and dark matter:

Pantheon+ is based on the largest dataset of its kind, comprising more than 1,500 stellar explosions called Type Ia supernovae.
Now, Brout and Scolnic and their new Pantheon+ team have added some 50 percent more supernovae data points in Pantheon+, coupled with improvements in analysis techniques and addressing potential sources of error, which ultimately has yielded twice the precision of the original Pantheon.

Standard cosmological model is 'holding strong':

"With these Pantheon+ results, we are able to put the most precise constraints on the dynamics and history of the universe to date," says Dillon Brout, an Einstein Fellow at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian. "We've combed over the data and can now say with more confidence than ever before how the universe has evolved over the eons and that the current best theories for dark energy and dark matter hold strong."

Dark matter/energy mix updated:

Taking the data as a whole, the new analysis holds that 66.2 percent of the universe manifests as dark energy, with the remaining 33.8 percent being a combination of dark matter and matter.

Hubble constant updated value and within 1.3% uncertainty:

Pantheon+ and SH0ES together find a Hubble constant of 73.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec with only 1.3% uncertainty. Stated another way, for every megaparsec, or 3.26 million light years, the analysis estimates that in the nearby universe, space itself is expanding at more than 160,000 miles per hour.

Discrepency between microwave backgound and supernova measurement methods for determining Hubble constant (called the 'Hubble tension') becomes clearer, thus deepening the mystery:

The new Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets heighten this Hubble tension. In fact, the tension has now passed the important 5-sigma threshold (about one-in-a-million odds of arising due to random chance) that physicists use to distinguish between possible statistical flukes and something that must accordingly be understood. Reaching this new statistical level highlights the challenge for both theorists and astrophysicists to try and explain the Hubble constant discrepancy.

'Exotic physics models' have along way to go before being comparable alongside the existing standard model's succcesses:

The Pantheon+ results could help point to where the solution to the Hubble tension lies. "Many recent theories have begun pointing to exotic new physics in the very early universe, however such unverified theories must withstand the scientific process and the Hubble tension continues to be a major challenge," says Brout.

 

[Bradskii]

Note:
John of Seabeck here:

John, we don't need the forum reformatted thanks. And we can already add colour...

 

[Astrid]

John, we don't need the forum reformatted thanks. And we can already add colour...

I got mentioned in there but it's kind of a mess

 

[SelfSim]

@John of Seabeck
Your assertions, whether you realise it or not, are based on the belief that philosophical Realism is 'a given'. Realism is well suited to the belief in the existence of 'God' independently from human minds, but is demonstrably not consistent with objective test results based on the scientific method.

I agree that scientific discourse often assumes the Realism worldview, however, when it comes down to science's conclusions, (especially on existence or reality enquiries), such worldviews are completely irrelevant as they, themselves, are not objectively testable. Realism can thus easily be swapped with other philosophical viewpoints and I argue that there are more scientifically consistent alternatives than Realism.

Realism is based on the notion (loosely) that 'things truly exist independently from any human mind's perceptions' .. which is completely nonsensical, when one looks at the evidence for human minds demonstrably assigning meanings to that term: 'exist', (or 'reality'), all the time.

The notion (or model) that the physical laws or constants, existed well prior to humans' understanding of them, is a convenient and useful model for the sake of expediency in conversations. It is also an inference based conclusion in science, made for the sole purpose of making practical, testable predictions .. and not for the purpose of holding is as some kind of 'universal truth'. 'Truth' in science is never better than its last, best tested theory and physical laws, theories and constants are expected to (eventually) change in science .. and have done so, many times throughout its history.

The explanation for that 'convenience' and the irrelevancy of philosophical worldviews in science, is a very extensive one, and I am unwilling to go through it all, yet again, on this thread .. (you can search my postings under 'MDR Hypothesis' if you wish to understand more).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Note:
John of Seabeck here:
This conversational is exceedingly important; and spiritually a good one for us all. Unfortunately the written format is exceedingly cumbersome.
I have copied it to a word format and represent it here I hope more cogently. If not, I apologize!
The format does permit COLORS and if we would utilize that access we would be able to distinguish points and individuals expressing those points much more clearly.

Is this conversation interesting? Sure.

Is it exceedingly important? I think not. (I don't think a cosmologist would find it exceedingly important. If I run into one I'll ask.)

Spiritually useful? This is cosmology, not a church.

If you find the written form cumbersome, then perhaps a internet message board isn't the right place for you.

If by "word format" you mean you copied it into MS Word. Please don't. Please use the "QUOTE" and "REPLY" buttons on each message (or if you highlight some text in a message) so that we can all easily tell which post and person you are responding to.

It also really helps to reply to one or two posts at a time. Sometimes even just one part of a post (if the other persons post has too many things in it to make a coherent message).

As for the Cosmology content in you post. It hurt my eyes to read it so I didn't.

You'll get there,

Cheers.

 

[John of Seabeck]

John, we don't need the forum reformatted thanks. And we can already add colour...

Yes, thank you. I just discovered this today and found it very useful. My only concern has been with the need to repeat referencing such as "marital status; Religious preference; etc." which, it seems to me need not to be repeated with each post, but if that is the format, no worries. The way I approach the forum pages is to make copy; paste it into a word document and save it if it is relevant and on topic. That way I can have a running scheme to save important insights. It's just my way of doing things if that is all right.
Thank you for your input. Blessings, John of Seabeck

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I used to buy their magazines prior to the Internet era and recall many subjects were heavy reading and certainly not in the category for light reading for the general public.
So it appears in order to appeal to a larger audience available today it has watered down its standards and used hyperbole as I described in my previous post.

Yes, this seems to be common for even respected science magazines that are now chasing views and clicks with hyperbolic headlines and fringe articles (New Scientist, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics come to mind). But it's entirely possible that without a degree of sensationalism they wouldn't turn a profit these days.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact is that galaxies look fully formed earlier than advertised. This experiment was billed as looking back in time to the early stages of the universe. So seeing fully formed galaxies at the limits of what this telescope can see was expected by the high priests of cosmology but simply not the way they sold the project to the public and the taxpayer?

The fact is that some of the most distant galaxies appear more mature than the current development model would predict. If you look at early papers on the JWST deep images you'll see descriptions of proto-galaxies, infant galaxies, immature galaxies, as well as some unexpectedly mature galaxies. It's misleading to suggest that all early galaxies look mature or 'fully formed' (at what point is a galaxy 'fully formed'?).

 

[Halbhh]

The issues I have here are the supposed implications on cosmology and I can only go by what I have been able to read on the subject.
If you watched the "Don't Panic" video the astronomer was referring to JWST images revealing a large number of disk type (spiral) galaxies which is a problem in explaining the evolution of galaxies.
This issue was known decades before even JWST started to take images.
The ΛCDM model for galaxy formation is based on the following simplified mechanism.

​

A problem with this mechanism it leads to a hierarchical problem as the ΛCDM model prediction underestimates the number of disk like (spiral) galaxies produced from proto-galaxies.
The JWST images have only confirmed the problem but there was no talk about the cosmological model being in trouble amongst scientists as the issue lies with the evolution of the galaxies themselves.
Similarly the evidence of galaxies being at a more mature stage of evolution in the earlier history of the universe in the reionization era again points to the problem being with the evolution of galaxies.
If there was evidence of microwave redshifted galaxies in the dark age the cosmological model would definitely be in trouble hence the Scientific American Title of "JWST's First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology" seems a bit over the top.


I'm a registered user for Scientific American and have access to their free articles not their subscribed ones.
I have to pay for the subscription to read the entire article.
I used to buy their magazines prior to the Internet era and recall many subjects were heavy reading and certainly not in the category for light reading for the general public.
So it appears in order to appeal to a larger audience available today it has watered down its standards and used hyperbole as I described in my previous post.

Another update from a few days ago.

"massive quiescent galaxies...one to two billion years after the Big Bang"

Our understanding of how galaxies form and the nature of dark matter could be completely upended after new observations of a stellar population bigger than the Milky Way from more than 11 billion years ago that should not exist.​

"Galaxy formation is in large part dictated by how dark matter concentrates," she says. "Having these extremely massive galaxies so early in the universe is posing significant challenges to our standard model of cosmology. This is because we don't think such massive dark matter structures as to host these massive galaxies have had time yet to form. More observations are needed to understand how common these galaxies may be and to help us understand how truly massive these galaxies are."

Glazebrook hopes this could be a new opening for our understanding of the physics of dark matter, stating, "JWST has been finding increasing evidence for massive galaxies forming early in time. This result sets a new record for this phenomenon. Although it is very striking, it is only one object. But we hope to find more, and if we do, this will really upset our ideas of galaxy formation."

'Beyond what's possible': New JWST observations unearth mysterious ancient galaxy

Our understanding of how galaxies form and the nature of dark matter could be completely upended after new observations of a stellar population bigger than the Milky Way from more than 11 billion years ago that should not exist.

phys.org

 

[driewerf]

All will be revealed once heaven is our final resting place.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why religious fundamentalism is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
With this attitude all scientific research comes to an halt.
The problem is: getting the ultimate cure for cancer once in heaven is a tiny little bit useless and too late. When you need it here down on Earth.

 

[Lost4words]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why religious fundamentalism is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
With this attitude all scientific research comes to an halt.
The problem is: getting the ultimate cure for cancer once in heaven is a tiny little bit useless and too late. When you need it here down on Earth.

God works in mysterious ways my friend. Trust in God. Believe in Him.

 

[SelfSim]

God works in mysterious ways my friend. Trust in God. Believe in Him.

.. or, notice all that, is just what it is .. a belief.

Meanwhile, support the process which executes the principles behind that belief, aka: the scientific process.

 

[Astrid]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why religious fundamentalism is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
With this attitude all scientific research comes to an halt.
The problem is: getting the ultimate cure for cancer once in heaven is a tiny little bit useless and too late. When you need it here down on Earth.

It does have at least one function being the
effortless route many terrif benefits such as:

-know more than any researcher on earth
without having to study
- gain the moral and ethical high ground
with no effort or achievement
- gain assurred immortal bliss and the last laugh

 

[sjastro]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why religious fundamentalism is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
With this attitude all scientific research comes to an halt.
The problem is: getting the ultimate cure for cancer once in heaven is a tiny little bit useless and too late. When you need it here down on Earth.

A fundamentalist in this forum claimed we should ignore the dangers of climate change because we are going to die anyway and meet God.
When l asked do you have any concerns of the quality of life your grandchildren will inherit the sounds of crickets prevailed.

 

[Lost4words]

.. or, notice all that, is just what it is .. a belief.

Meanwhile, support the process which executes the principles behind that belief, aka: the scientific process.

Faith and belief in God is a wonderful thing my friend

 

[Bradskii]

A fundamentalist in this forum claimed we should ignore the dangers of climate change because we are going to die anyway and meet God.
When l asked do you have any concerns of the quality of life your grandchildren will inherit the sounds of crickets prevailed.

There was a huge storm. A guy heard on the radio that people should head for high ground. He ignored the warning, thinking 'God will save me.'

The flood waters rose and he was trapped on his roof. A rescue boat came past and told him to get onboard. He ignored them. He shouted that he had faith and that God would save him.

He was about to be washed away and a helicopter arrived. He waved them away. He knew that God would save him.

He drowned.

When he came before God, he was angry. 'I've lived a faithful life. I have worshipped you all my days. Why didn't you save me!'

God said: 'Good grief. I had a radio warning broadcast, a boat sent and a helicopter. And you ignored them all!'

 

[Mark Quayle]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why religious fundamentalism is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
With this attitude all scientific research comes to an halt.
The problem is: getting the ultimate cure for cancer once in heaven is a tiny little bit useless and too late. When you need it here down on Earth.

That's a bit over-the-top, man. That attitude doesn't even try to stop scientific investigation. It just doesn't believe that science will ever understand everything.