|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Crack-Pot Ideas that still hold water | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm thinking this should slide on into "Is this science?"
I've recently, and repeatedly, had a few of my ideas flat out ridiculed by people who called them "ridiculous" and "idiotic". Perhaps these ideas aren't "scientific" but I personally feel that they stand up perfectly well by certain standards of YEC science. I'd like to present a few of them here to see if anyone can disprove them. Also, if you have any ideas, I'll try to knock those down if you like. 1) Downward Pusher - Gravity is not a law. What we "believe" is gravity "attracting two objects with mass" is simply the downward force exherted upon us by the Intelligent Pusher. It is through his devine providence that we don't go spinning out into space. 2) Upside Down Evaporation - Many of the features of the Great Flood don't stand up against modern geology, however, this is because geologists are assuming that the waters of the Flood behave like water we see today on Earth. My assertion is that these waters actually evaporated from the bottom up - thus salt deposits could form underneith other layers, erosion could happen backwards, etc. 3) Random Species POP-ulation. New species randomly POP into existance. (usually with the audible sound). This accounts for why so many species that exist today don't exist in the past. It also allows for different species without macro-evolution. Anyone wanna take a stab at these. By the way, I know some of you think I'm being silly here, but I honestly KNOW these to be true, so good luck proving me wrong. Also, I read these in a book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJazzlover Inactive Member |
Im not sure if youre serious or joking. Ill have to check with the other admins on this one.
"...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Well, if I say I'm serious, you pretty much have to take me at my word.
My larger point is this - my arguments are just as valid as anyone elses. I'd like to see someone try to disprove them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJazzlover Inactive Member |
Ok Ill trust you and I'll take your word. Now where can I put this.
"...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJazzlover Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Yeah, I'll give it a try...
3) Random Species POP-ulation. New species randomly POP into existance. (usually with the audible sound). This accounts for why so many species that exist today don't exist in the past. It also allows for different species without macro-evolution. Why don't we observe the popping now? And what about conservation of energy? Is there any descriptive law you can derive from the POP events that describe how energy changes in the system (both locally and universally)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
1) Downward Pusher - Gravity is not a law. What we "believe" is gravity "attracting two objects with mass" is simply the downward force exherted upon us by the Intelligent Pusher. It is through his devine providence that we don't go spinning out into space. You're not saying "gravity is not a law." You're simply giving a mechanism to gravity. The same descriptive law (gravity, in the Newtonian formulation, is simply a descriptive law) holds. Can we know anything more about the pusher? Why does the pusher push? Does the pusher ever get bored and not push? Why does the pusher choose to ignore objects that are far, far away? And why does the pusher vary the amount of pushing as 1/r^2? Wouldn't 1/r be an easier calculation? Is the pusher some kind of math wiz? Also, how does the pusher do measurements of distance, to determine exactly how much to push? How long do these measurements and subsequent calculations take? Does that show up as a lag time in how the pusher adjusts his/her pushing after a change in distance between the two object occurs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Why don't we observe the popping now? You are assuming uniformism. Your entire world view is nothing but assumptions built ontop of other assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
[qs]Can we know anything more about the pusher? Why does the pusher push? Does the pusher ever get bored and not push? Why does the pusher choose to ignore objects that are far, far away? And why does the pusher vary the amount of pushing as 1/r^2? Wouldn't 1/r be an easier calculation? Is the pusher some kind of math wiz?
Only through prayer can you truly "know" the pusher. The pusher's choice to push is beyond your understanding. To question it pusher is to break one of the divine rules. (specially #7 Thou Shalt Not Question The Pusher) The pusher never "bores" but the pusher does choose to not push some types of balloons. Also, he pushes less hard on birds and clouds. The pusher doesn't ignore far away objects, he just focuses his pushing more on us, as we are his primary responsibility. The pusher doesn't bother with math or equations. In fact, to try and quantify the pusher is also a violation of #7.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Yes, you're right. That is an assumption. In place of any observation, we have to make assumptions in order to make predictions. Good thing we have this new observation; it informs us that in fact things are NOT uniform over time. Good to know.
Is there any predictability to when these changes take place? Can I know when the popping will start again? Is there any determination behind it? Also, when species go extinct, do they make a noise? Finally, how can a food chain, and the interdependence between organisms work in this case? Was there an order of POPping such that animals lower on the food chain popped first? Seems it must have been; if you POP a lion with no meat to eat, the lion dies. Or was the lion a herbivore before?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The pusher's choice to push is beyond your understanding. To question it pusher is to break one of the divine rules. (specially #7 Thou Shalt Not Question The Pusher)
But then how can we make predictions based on pushing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
The pusher never "bores" but the pusher does choose to not push some types of balloons. Also, he pushes less hard on birds and clouds. lol. How does the pusher handle the atmosphere? And if I'm not supposed to question the pusher, how will I get to know the pusher? What's prayer? Is it possible to push the pusher? I like to push things that are annoying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
I mean, it's fun, I'll probably play around some more.. for the same reason we all love puzzle games.
Nuggin, What is the purpose of science? It seems like you think the purpose of science is to find truth. But I completely disagree. Science cannot tell us about truth. It can only help us create models of the world we observe. Those models help us manipulate the world. But the models themselves need not be truth. In fact, there's an infinite regress; you will never get an model or mechanism behind every part of another model. At some point you accept something as "irreducable", or you simply keep basing your mechanisms on a "yet to be known" mechanism. In physics, I guess the "irreducable" would be atoms. Oh, no, wait, protons and neutrons. Crap. Quarks. No? Gluons? Strings? And a "yet to be known mechanism" ... what is "randomness" in quantum theory? Or is that just taken as "irreducable"? Science says nothing about truth. Occam's razor ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with truth, and EVERYTHING to do with building models to predict and manipulate our world. When it comes to building modles and doing computations, keeping things simple with the least amount of assumptions serves us well. In the face of multiple competing theories, you want the computationally least involved one. You want the most easily extensible one. You want the one that has less mechanisms to change when your model inevitably breaks, because all models are fundamentally descriptions of what we have not yet observed, and new observations consistently do not fit within existing models. That's why the scientific method is so powerful--we can make progress in spite of all this. But when it comes to truth... there's no way to determine which is the "best", or which is "right." The rules for choosing one "truth" over another are very different for those of choosing one model over another. Why do you think scientific models have anything to do with truth? I'll give you an example. One truth says nothing about the question, WHY? For those who want an answer to this question, for those who are dissatisfied with having no answer, how is a "truth" with no answer better than a "truth" WITH an answer to this question? Your argument rests fundamentally on saying that Occam's razor applies to finding "truth." That's a complete misuse of the principle. It's a practical principle about empirical theories. Occam's razor is not useful for that which is not empirical. I'll stop here for now. I'm not pulling your chain Nuggin. I'm speaking seriously. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5615 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
Nuggin writes: You are assuming uniformism. Your entire world view is nothing but assumptions built ontop of other assumptions. That doesn't quite cut it for me. From my spanish dictionary(a cheap one by the way) it says: Uniformismo = Tendencia a hacer que varias cosas de la misma clase sean iguales o semejantes entre sí. Translated to english it says; Tendency to make various things of the same class become equal or similar between them. I dont see how this answers Ben's question of why dont we see poping right now. Viva Puerto Rico Libre. Colonialism is an international crime
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Can I know when the popping will start again? The day will come when there is a great Popping, and all those who believe will be taken away.
Also, when species go extinct, do they make a noise? There is some debate. It's either a Crackle or a Snap.
Finally, how can a food chain, and the interdependence between organisms work in this case? This is a good question. It seems likely that they popped into existance in order from simpliest to most complex. But they did so over an incredibly short amount of time (Approx 22 minutes.) Of course, time worked a lot different during those 22 minutes (see above issues with your bias towards uniformism). Perhaps you'd like to make a donation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024