Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits of Science
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 81 (303982)
04-13-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PurpleYouko
04-13-2006 9:23 AM


Not now, not ever
quote:
You seem to be missing the point here.
If you accept that the evidence we can directly measure from distant stars (today) shows that the light that we see (today) was generated under identical conditions to those we observe (today)
No, the light we have was not generated under identical conditions. We see that the same conditions now apply far away as they do here, like being in a state of decay, as we notice in 1987a. The merged univese state of the past had a different fabric of time/space, and light relationship, and composition. All we see is the present state. Light that was also spiritual in nature could not be limited by mere physical speeds and properties. That is why light from far stars could be seen here almost right away. As the seperation process finished, leaving us in this temporary physical only state, the light coming in was left as is.
It was not 'generated' from the far away source as such, but was left that way still coming in on that old highway of light. The assumption it was generated as is comes purely in assuming that it also used to be in a PO state.
quote:
) and you also accept that the speed of light is constant (today) and has been so for at least a few thousand years then how did the light from these distant stars (millions of light years away) reach us?
It has been what it is since it came to be at the split. It used to get here in days, or hours, or some such little time. After the split, it got in the way it now does, as this different light. If we want to get fancy, with supernovae , and how it exploded as expected, showing it operates as we do, I can explain that as well.
quote:
If the universe changed to the way it is now only a few thousand years ago then that light could not possibly be here yet. That means that the light started its journey longer ago than a few thousand years right?
Think about it, you assume it was the same light. This light was not here, it is what was left after the split. The former light being also spiritual, and different, got here almost right away. It left our light that is what it is and does what it now does, which is move slow as molasses in comparison!
quote:
Since we can directly measure the physical conditions in the star at the time the light was originated, this means that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years
No. In the split process, the spiritual was seperated, leaving just the physical, which is what we see, -as expected, as operating as physical objects ought to operate! The fact that we can see it means just that the light with the info in it got here very fast. If the space between the star, and earth was slightly slower in transforming from spiritual to physical only, it means that it was still merged long enough for the light to either get here, or, in some cases, get well on the way here, I would think. As we see in the Cosmic background radiation, it is not perfectly smooth. perhaps this is a trace of something other than the claimed big bang.
So, unless it could be shown that the universe from creation was just physical, the past merged universe also explains things. Too bad old agers can't do that eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 9:23 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 04-13-2006 4:03 PM simple has replied
 Message 49 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 4:58 PM simple has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 81 (303987)
04-13-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
04-13-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
Think about it, you assume it was the same light. This light was not here, it is what was left after the split. The former light being also spiritual, and different, got here almost right away. It left our light that is what it is and does what it now does, which is move slow as molasses in comparison!
If the light left during the spiritual age, then why does it contain information on a purely physical stellar state.
So, unless it could be shown that the universe from creation was just physical, the past merged universe also explains things.
How about, instead of saying it explains things, you state exactly how it explains currently observed phenomena.
For example, given:
"There was physical/spiritual split thousands of years ago"
Show me why we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background as it is.
As I said before explain anything you want, but not in a hand waving manner. I want a literal scientific deduction.
Then we'll move onto what differences this predicts to warrant consideration.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-13-2006 04:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 3:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:27 PM Son Goku has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 81 (303992)
04-13-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Codegate
04-13-2006 10:16 AM


Re: Common Misconception
The thing that makes it hard to understand is we always looked at things as if we were in the natural created state. Assuming things came to be as a result of the -what we thought were 'natural' processes. Since the PO is only a temporary state, and the coming, and past merged state is the true natural, everything must be looked at again, and the assumptions checked. If we realize it used to be different, then it is no deception.
As for the thread you mentioned, here is a quick take on it. My comments in {}
......................
....................
----"8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California.
10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
{Trees grew in days in the past, this is irelevant}
45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
{[Hyper growth of bacteria, algea, and other things as well as hyper deposition rates, routine flooding and almost daily drying from subteranean water, and other big differences render the present way it is formed as irelevant also}
... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
{Carbon levels in the past not subject to present based assumptions}
110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
{Present assumptions again not applicable}
567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
With water above the earth, and below, there were many possibilities of mass amounts of this forming. I think chemically, as well as the hyper growth rates applying to the same material produced organically]
... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
{The daughter materials in the rocks were already there, engaged in a different process that was not a decay process at all. After the seperation, the 'switch flipped' and the process became one of decay. Observers in the present see that the decay process is now in effect, producing the daughter material, and assume it was all produced by the decay process, over great time, since theoretically if the process always were the same, it would take great time. Now, the same question, was the past the same, and the process? How can we know? Certainly not by just assuming the present was always the same as the far past!}
Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)"
{Same deal, the present simply IS NOT THE KEY TO THE PAST after all, and no proof exists to say it can!}
This message has been edited by simple, 04-13-2006 04:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Codegate, posted 04-13-2006 10:16 AM Codegate has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 49 of 81 (304016)
04-13-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by simple
04-13-2006 3:53 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
No, the light we have was not generated under identical conditions.
I'm afraid you are simply wrong here. It was generated under the same conditions we have here right now. We can tell that because the way stars work at a quantum level is intimately related to the speed of light. Specific frequencies in the light tells us the exact conditions under which the light was (not is right now) generated.
We see that the same conditions now apply far away as they do here
No we can't! It is impossible to say any such thing. For all we know the localized physics where the star is right now could have changed completely (assuming that such a thing is possible). We can say absolutely nothing about the way it is right now because we can only see what happened waaaaaay back when the light was formed.
Think about it, you assume it was the same light. This light was not here, it is what was left after the split. The former light being also spiritual, and different, got here almost right away. It left our light that is what it is and does what it now does, which is move slow as molasses in comparison!
Naah!! I don't buy that. It was the time warp fairies that put the photons there about 6000 years ago and gave them a smack in the right direction.
When measuring the conditions in a star, we are not assuming anything. We are in actual fact taking a direct measurement of conditions in the distant past.
If the speed of light had changed in any way during the trip, we would detect dopler shifts in the frequencies. The light we see from stars of every distance show very very clearly that nothing has changed for many millions of years. In fact it is remarkably consistent right back to the very first stars that formed, billions of years ago.
You asked for proof. I gave you some. End of story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 3:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 5:42 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 54 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 6:07 PM PurpleYouko has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 81 (304021)
04-13-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
04-13-2006 10:01 AM


Creative Indeed!
quote:
Testing something works along these lines.
1. Assumption: The earth is old.
Thanks for admitting that! What the hec kind of starting assumption is that?
quote:
2. Evidence: radiometric dating
3: Testing: Find an alternative dating method and perform tests against radiometrically dated things. If this dating method agrees with radiometric dating our confidence is increased that the dates are accurate.
4: Repeat testing for as many alternative methods as you can
So, first assume it is old, then treat all evidence as such, I see. The only thing you'd test there is the patience of anyone who actually paid attention to what you were doing, and didn't share your religion, or beliefs.
quote:
5: Result: So far many many many many dating methods have been employed and they come back with results that agree with radiometric dating (and by extension each other).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the belief based assumption was faulty for the one, the rest of the ducks following all are heading to the same pond. No doubt convinced they might find the first lifeform there!
It isn't how many ducks are heading to the wrong pond that counts. Now let's not duck the evidence here.
quote:
This is science. You don't have to agree with science, but disagreeing about whether it is science or not based on some alternate philosophy doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
If the underlying assumption is not solidly supported, it is not science, more like stand up comedy. Evidence is more important than the number or wrong conclusions one can collect.
quote:
We can't prove gravity exists, we are just massively massively sure it does. After all - are you forgetting the Intelligent Pushers?
No, not forgetting, just never heard of them. Tell you what, all I ask is the kind of prood we have for gravity, then I will accept your old age past fantasies as fact. I don't need absolute, so called 'proof'. Just real solid reasoning, and hard evidence, not just spinning interpretation on the evidence. Let's see you claim the evidence for your old age side, as exclusively where it must go. As is, there is nothing at all but some unsupportable assumptions you aren't used to having questioned.
quote:
"Magnetism, electricity"
Intelligent pusher I'm afraid. Alternatively they are all the deluded illusions of a coma victim, and they don't exist at all.
Let me see here, I guess you actually want us to swallow your claim that the past was physical only, as well as your claims there is no gravity, magnetism, or electricity!!!!!!? Think about it. Does that sound like a solid case to you?
quote:
This is the problem. You might consider it beyond reasonable doubt. I consider the age of the earth/universe etc as being beyond reasonable doubt.
Well, we can turn on a light, and see electricity, or observe and test a magnet, ot the magnetic field of the earth, or gravity. No contest, these beat unsupported assumptions the past and future doesn't involve more than the present PO state any time. Your hunches are only of so much value.
quote:
We can both agree such an argument is weak. The evidence that demonstrates an old earth/universe is massive, you don't think it is. ..
That is in box evidence, applicible to the present. It's fine in the fishbowl, you can't take it out though! Otherwise you might crash our galaxy in the future, and have our universe in a speck in the past! Sorry, dark dreams need more than just the fact you like them.
quote:
We use science to test the recent past, but that is not scientific either - after all if I test something that happened 1,000 years ago, how can I be sure that the universe wasn't spiritual then and our history has become muddled and wrong...or were forged?
Yes it is, we can teast things about the recent past. I think they pickled Einstein's brain, we could test that. We can teast all kinds of things from the recent past, that is science! We know that past was just as PO as the present, all our assumption hold water. Beyond that is where you crash and burn.
quote:
1)An unevidencable past, based solely on assumption
Actually, that's your hypothesis. What I was putting forward was a universe that has a past which leaves evidence. So we're still in our 4-d universe model.
Not unless your present Po fishbowl has 4 dimensions. The past does leave evidence, that is not in question. But show us where this evidence shows the universe was PO, and will be? That is the stuff you lack, the rest is assumptive fluff.
quote:
2) A mechanism/agent where it was in a speck hot soup for no apparent reason
That sounds like a theistic evolutionists position more than my own. I propose no agents but a 4-d universe, this 'speck hot soup' represents but one region of coordinates within this entity.
So, you agree it was in the soup speck, but don't like to talk about it that way, fine. I'll respect your religion.
quote:
.. Fortunately science doesn't try to explain all things that have happened. It tries to develop the best explanations based on what evidence exists.
The spiritual exists, ask almost anyone. As you say, it offers explanations based on what is under it's little nose. That is fine, unless they claim that that is all that also ever was or will be! And do so without support to boot! I don't quaetion what they see under their nose at the moment.
quote:
. The future, the past and the present are all part of the 4-d object I propose.
No, you can't cram the universe in your box you dream up. All you can do is inform us all you see is the 4 d bit in your fishbowl. Whoopee do.
quote:
One of the cornerstones of science is the ability to predict. If the universe's rules change our prediction will of course be wrong.
You bet. Remember that one.
quote:
We have no reason to suspect the rules will change, and if they were to change then we would not bee able to make predictions. As such we have a choice of producing tentative predictions based on what we know now, or makin no predictions.
Since you predict things like our galaxy crashing, and sun burning out, and that the decaying, dying universe is all there ever will be, I vote you ought to pipe down, since you admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about! Give the kids a break. Stick to what you know. Teach them all about the fishbowl.
quote:
..Nor is the spiritual factor 'known'.
Not only known, WEKK known! The majority of the planet recognize it in one form or another, always have, do you think we are all nuts?
quote:
Peculiarly I am not alone. Scientists, the people who practice science, agree with me that science does not end at some arbitrary time and there is an abundance of evidence from independent lines converging to the same history.
Of course not, all they know is the PO present universe, and ASSUME it was all there was or will ever be! They are not capable of detecting where it will change. They speak of the box, only the box, and in the box. I don't mind that, it is a big PO universe we have. Where the rub comes is predicting for no reason it is the same forever before and after.
quote:
I've provided the evidence, the massively accurate convergence of many indpendent lines of evidence that suggest the same thing.
That is old age assumptive spin. You need to show not 'what if it were always the same, then this and this would be like that and that' . But ' We KNOW it had to be PO in the past and must be in the future because...... this and that and the other' Otherwise it is pure circular reasoning, in box beliefs, and self fulfilling prophesy!
quote:
So, they grew pre split. No problem. I assume they grew at some other 'rate', which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process. ..
The rate they grow does not affect the fact tree rings are present does it? So, how in the world can you begin to tell us how fast they grew? Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm? Can you do that? No. So don't pretend you can. You can't talk to us of pre split growth rates! The evidence is on my side as well. All you do is repeatedly predict in a plethora of ways, that the past must operate like the present. The science lies in the present, the past and future bit is nothing but speculations it was the same!
quote:
Are you suggesting now that the processes behind ice core build up and radioactive decay and corals and trees were all the same processes in this spirity world? This inverts your problem. Now we have sudden physical processes springing into existence that happen to agree with one another about how old they are.
I have no problem. You do. There was no decay universally pre split, and all assumptions about evidences you make are nothing more that repeated assumptions it used to be the same. Put some meat on the plate here.
quote:
I think this might be a useful time to repeat the line I started on here. There is an abundance of evidence for an old universe beyond whatever arbitrary time you choose within the last 10,000 years or so.
None. You overvalue your beliefs. Take an example. Tree rings. They grew in days, science has nothing to say about it, except that is not how they now grow. I agree it isn't. Now if science grows an opinion actually about why the rates must have been the same then precisely, I would like to hear it. Meanwhile, the echo of your baseless assumptive opinions on the future and past are all that is bouncing around the room.
quote:
What evidence is there that any of this happened, or is it ad hoc reasoning?
What evidence is there it didn't? If you claim there is some science to apply here let's get on with it. Assumptions alone, unsupported just don't cut it.
[quote] As it stands though, our assumptions have been tested in a variety of creative ways and the results are consistently supportive of the concept that our assumption is valid. ... [quote] Like what? Name one. Creative indeed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 10:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 81 (304024)
04-13-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Son Goku
04-13-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
quote:
If the light left during the spiritual age, then why does it contain information on a purely physical stellar state.
The space between there and here I would think was still merged long enough to get the light here. The seperation process may have had areas that became PO first. For example, matter may have taken more time than light, or space, etc? The result being that the physical explosion, or reaction, or whatnot, was conveyed to earth in the still merged light! It realluy was a physical reation.
quote:
For example, given:
"There was physical/spiritual split thousands of years ago"
Show me why we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background as it is.
A result of either creatiomn or the split. Since as I just pointed out the seperation process was not unifrom perfectly, it seems to make sense the CMB isn't either!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 04-13-2006 4:03 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2006 5:39 PM simple has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 81 (304028)
04-13-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by simple
04-13-2006 5:27 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
The space between there and here I would think was still merged long enough to get the light here. The seperation process may have had areas that became PO first. For example, matter may have taken more time than light, or space, etc? The result being that the physical explosion, or reaction, or whatnot, was conveyed to earth in the still merged light! It realluy was a physical reation.
You're just making shit up as you go along with no support for it whatsoever. Its a raping of the science forum I tell ya!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:27 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 53 of 81 (304030)
04-13-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PurpleYouko
04-13-2006 4:58 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
PurpleYouko writes:
It was the time warp fairies that put the photons there about 6000 years ago and gave them a smack in the right direction.
No, silly! Here, I'll explain it:
When a ship engages its hyperdrive, the light from the stars elongates, but it [i][b]doesn't change its frequency![/i][/b] (Check out the footage from the Millennium Falcon.) So, we had all these X-Wings, Y-Wings, B-Wings, A-Wings, Mon Calamari cruisers, Lancer-class frigates, Victory/Imperial Star Destroyers, Super Star Destroyers, etc., zipping from star to star, stretching out the light.
Now, when the Star Wars universe separated from the mundane universe, this stretched light remained. This is why we can see stars that are further away than we should be able to see. And, as the frequency isn't changed, you can't tell the difference between hyperdrive-stretched light and light that ain't stretched.
Come on, this is kid's stuff!
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-13-2006 05:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 4:58 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 10:41 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 81 (304036)
04-13-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PurpleYouko
04-13-2006 4:58 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
quote:
I'm afraid you are simply wrong here. It was generated under the same conditions we have here right now. We can tell that because the way stars work at a quantum level is intimately related to the speed of light. Specific frequencies in the light tells us the exact conditions under which the light was (not is right now) generated.
I understand you think you have a point. But I am saying the light was the same since it came to be, after the seperation. So, what you would be seeing was only since the light came to be. If, as I say, it was on the way here, with the info in it at the seperation process we would expect to see the info! Now, this means that the merged light carried the info of the physical only changed matter we see out there to us. Now, all light is simply our light.
quote:
No we can't! It is impossible to say any such thing. For all we know the localized physics where the star is right now could have changed completely
Of course. What I meant was that the whole universe is physical only now. Whether that star is still there, at the rate light now travels we don't know. What we know is that the star (or supernova)
was physical enough to give expected normal reactions, apparently.
quote:
When measuring the conditions in a star, we are not assuming anything. We are in actual fact taking a direct measurement of conditions in the distant past.
If the speed of light had changed in any way during the trip, we would detect dopler shifts in the frequencies.
Of course you are assuming plenty. It didn't change on the trip it IS the change. No one says our light changed. It is the change. Of course we would know if 'light' as we know it had changed.
quote:
The light we see from stars of every distance show very very clearly that nothing has changed for many millions of years. In fact it is remarkably consistent right back to the very first stars that formed, billions of years ago.
No. The light we see is our light. The light that Adam saw was not. Our light came to be as a result of the split, we were left with it. The reason it carries info from far away, is because it used to get here quick. That is the former light, in the merged universe. The split happens, and it is now not what it was, but just our light coming in still. Since the stars first were affected by the process, the still merged light carried the info of the now physical star on it's way to earth. The light still carried the info as it was left in a PO state. It comes in with that info. It comes in at it's speed that did not cahnage since our light came to be after the split. Using assumptions that the light and universe was always the same, they assume it took a long time. It did not. Again, the present is NOT the key to the past. It is jsut the culmative echo of unsupportable assumptions about the future and past being PO!
That all you got?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 4:58 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 11:01 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 81 (304037)
04-13-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2006 5:39 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
OK, so you are beat, and can't provide evidence the past was PO, fine. I understand the foul words, I was frustrated once when my arguements were weaker too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2006 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 04-13-2006 6:20 PM simple has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(1)
Message 56 of 81 (304039)
04-13-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by simple
04-13-2006 6:09 PM


It's all magic.
Your so called arguments consist only of the equivalent to "it's all magic". If this is all you continue to offer you will be suspended from the science forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 6:09 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:03 PM AdminNosy has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 81 (304042)
04-13-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by simple
04-13-2006 5:19 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
Testing something works along these lines.
1. Assumption: The earth is old.
Thanks for admitting that! What the hec kind of starting assumption is that?
One that is based on the evidence I listed below it.
So, first assume it is old, then treat all evidence as such, I see. The only thing you'd test there is the patience of anyone who actually paid attention to what you were doing, and didn't share your religion, or beliefs.
First you take one piece of evidence, it suggests the earth is old. You then test this using an entirely different line of evidence. If the two match you have supported {the earth is old}, the more independent tests the more supported it becomes.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the belief based assumption was faulty for the one, the rest of the ducks following all are heading to the same pond. No doubt convinced they might find the first lifeform there!
It isn't how many ducks are heading to the wrong pond that counts. Now let's not duck the evidence here.
Are you suggesting then, that we cannot test anything to see if it might be true using a different line of evidence? It almost reads like you are suggesting that lots of evidence saying the same thing is somehow irrelevant. I don't think any court would find someone not guilty if their defense was "But you are testing on the assumption that I am guilty...".
That's not how testing works. Testing works by saying 'if our concept is true, then we should see evidence from an independent source indicating the same thing. ' That's how we test our hypothesis that the earth is old.
If the underlying assumption is not solidly supported, it is not science, more like stand up comedy. Evidence is more important than the number or wrong conclusions one can collect.
Agreed. It's a jolly good job I've been presenting evidence, then!
No, not forgetting, just never heard of them. Tell you what, all I ask is the kind of prood we have for gravity, then I will accept your old age past fantasies as fact. I don't need absolute, so called 'proof'. Just real solid reasoning, and hard evidence, not just spinning interpretation on the evidence. Let's see you claim the evidence for your old age side, as exclusively where it must go. As is, there is nothing at all but some unsupportable assumptions you aren't used to having questioned.
That sounds like a thread for the Dates and Dating forum. Its a big topic in it's own right. I have already presented plenty of evidence here, and the most important piece of evidence: the pattern that emerges from the evidences.
As is, there is nothing at all but some unsupportable assumptions you aren't used to having questioned.
Such hubris! You think that I have spent so much time here and made so many posts without someone questioning my assumptions. It's the entire basis of debate here.
Let me see here, I guess you actually want us to swallow your claim that the past was physical only, as well as your claims there is no gravity, magnetism, or electricity!!!!!!? Think about it. Does that sound like a solid case to you?
That's kind of the point. I was denying gravity etc on the same grounds you are denying an old earth. Just picking any old piece of unfalsifiable hypothesis means I can deny just about anything. Its not a solid case, at all.
Well, we can turn on a light, and see electricity, or observe and test a magnet, ot the magnetic field of the earth, or gravity. No contest, these beat unsupported assumptions the past and future doesn't involve more than the present PO state any time. Your hunches are only of so much value.
We don't see the electricity. The light is generated by excited pixies that are tickled by electrons being pushed down the wires by the inteligent pusher. I'm using the same evidence, just different starting assumptions.
You can keep repeating that assumptions about an old earth are unsupported. I have told you how science defines a supported assumption, and shown the old earth is tested to the same standards as any other aspect of science. Its up to you whether or not you want to tackle the evidence and the method of reaching conclusions from the evidence or just keep repeating your opinion about the subject.
The latter is going to mean we are constantly repeating ourselves and the debate goes nowhere, might I advise against that?
That is in box evidence, applicible to the present. It's fine in the fishbowl, you can't take it out though! Otherwise you might crash our galaxy in the future, and have our universe in a speck in the past!
There are lots of threads which discuss the conclusions of Einstein's work in relativity. Check out some of recent the Big Bang threads in the Cosmology forum.
Yes it is, we can teast things about the recent past. I think they pickled Einstein's brain, we could test that. We can teast all kinds of things from the recent past, that is science! We know that past was just as PO as the present, all our assumption hold water. Beyond that is where you crash and burn.
We can't test that it's really Einstein's brain. We can't test that there ever was an Einstein. You are just assuming that the history you were taught in school is accurate. We have been brainwashed to think there is an Einstein! This is kind of refutation you are putting forward...you just pick an arbitrary cut off point of around 5,000 years ago. I could choose 5 generations ago as a cut off point and refute the concept that the Ancient Egyptians existed.
Not unless your present Po fishbowl has 4 dimensions. The past does leave evidence, that is not in question. But show us where this evidence shows the universe was PO, and will be? That is the stuff you lack, the rest is assumptive fluff.
I have shown the evidence, I have discussed in detail the overall pattern that the evidence reveals, and the consequences thereof.
So, you agree it was in the soup speck, but don't like to talk about it that way, fine. I'll respect your religion.
I have no qualms about the way you talk about the early universe. I was simply presenting to the the concept in terms of the model I was discussing.
The spiritual exists, ask almost anyone.
So what most people believe must be true?
No, you can't cram the universe in your box you dream up. All you can do is inform us all you see is the 4 d bit in your fishbowl. Whoopee do.
Sorry, I'm just describing the universe as Einstein saw it, simplified slightly. The universe simply exists as a single entity with 4 dimensional coordinates. Time is one of those coordinates. See the Cosmology forum for greater depth.
Since you predict things like our galaxy crashing, and sun burning out, and that the decaying, dying universe is all there ever will be, I vote you ought to pipe down, since you admit you don't have a clue what you are talking about! Give the kids a break. Stick to what you know. Teach them all about the fishbowl.
Are you arguing from unacceptable consequences? I'm sorry that you are unnerved or upset or whatever about the consequences of thermodynamics and such revolutionary predictions as galaxies that are getting continuously closer to us one day colliding with us.
Not only known, WEKK known! The majority of the planet recognize it in one form or another, always have, do you think we are all nuts?
No, I don't think your nuts, and I don't think I'm nuts. However, talking from a science point of view (we are in the science fora here), we have no objective evidence for it, only subjective feelings about the topic. From a science point of view we can't let what we believe to be true dictate what conclusions we reach.
Of course not, all they know is the PO present universe, and ASSUME it was all there was or will ever be!
Glad we agree that I am not alone, contrary to what you oringally stated:
quote:
It is you and only you who claim science backs up your PO past!
That is old age assumptive spin. You need to show not 'what if it were always the same, then this and this would be like that and that' . But ' We KNOW it had to be PO in the past and must be in the future because...... this and that and the other'
Science doesn't work like that. We never KNOW anything in science. Science tests hypothesis, either falsifying them or supporting them. We can test the hypothesis that the earth is old.
The rate they grow does not affect the fact tree rings are present does it? So, how in the world can you begin to tell us how fast they grew? Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence.
I think I was saying this same thing, simple. I then went on to make my point viz:
quote:
which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process
Its the pattern of coincidences that I'm really interested in, not ad hoc explanations.
. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm? Can you do that? No. So don't pretend you can.
I can't, I didn't think you could either. You see the quandry? Your position is ad hoc. There is no evidence that would confirm it or falsify it, from a science point of view its entirely useless.
The evidence is on my side as well.
I've only seen ad hoc explanations. I've not actually seen the evidence explained as a whole. There is no unifying principle to explain the whole sequence of coincidences. All you are saying is 'yeah, but logically it could have happened and we'd never know, all sciences evidences about it would be wrong'. I agree. But we can apply this kind of thinking to any element of science. Science tries to overcome these other philosophical ideas by employing a very good methodology.
It might all be wrong, it is possible for you scenario to be true. That doesn't mean what is being done now isn't science.
I have no problem. You do. There was no decay universally pre split, and all assumptions about evidences you make are nothing more that repeated assumptions it used to be the same.
And tests to support my position. I have also put it to you that if daughter products were already there then the coincidence is that each element would have had to have a relatively different amount of daughter products. It would be one heck of a coincidence if they all just happened to have the perfect spread of daughter products to produce a consistent age reading. Its these kinds of coincidences that I have been trying to discuss with you.
None. You overvalue your beliefs. Take an example. Tree rings. They grew in days, science has nothing to say about it, except that is not how they now grow. I agree it isn't. Now if science grows an opinion actually about why the rates must have been the same then precisely, I would like to hear it.
The point is the way that the dates taken from tree rings say the same thing as radioactive decays do.
What evidence is there it didn't?
That's what you pass for a logical retort to someone asking for some evidence.
If you claim there is some science to apply here let's get on with it. Assumptions alone, unsupported just don't cut it.
you then ask
Like what? Name one. Creative indeed!
If you haven't spotted my discussion in regard to how evidence is supported in science, and you missed it again in this post, I suggest you reread what I've been saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:19 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:04 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 60 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:08 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 61 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:10 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 62 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:13 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 63 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:17 PM Modulous has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 81 (304055)
04-13-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AdminNosy
04-13-2006 6:20 PM


Under the Nose
Actually, I was pointing out that is YOUR arguements, since you can't support the claim upon which all old ages ideas are based! You may be a little dictator bully on this forum, that is fine, ta ta. There was no physical only past, you can't show there was, your tooth fairy so called science is a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 04-13-2006 6:20 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminNosy, posted 04-13-2006 9:24 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 81 (304056)
04-13-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
04-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
quote:
First you take one piece of evidence, it suggests the earth is old. ..
No, circular reasoning. You assume it is old, assume the past was PO, then inyterpret things that way

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2006 2:47 AM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 81 (304058)
04-13-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
04-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
"Sorry, I'm just describing the universe as Einstein saw it, simplified slightly. The universe simply exists as a single entity with 4 dimensional coordinates. Time is one of those coordinates"
He saw it using the same phyiscal present natural only assumptions, so relativity is relative only to the temporary PO universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024