Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 373 (739608)
10-25-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
10-25-2014 7:28 PM


Some definitions
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 7:28 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 373 (739612)
10-25-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
10-25-2014 7:28 PM


The attitude of science itself proclaims to be progressive in it's conclusions, along with the rate of discovery, so it really does not need "righteous defenders of the faith"who call others ignorant and delusional.
It seems to me that it's legitimate to call ignorant and delusional people ignorant and delusional, just as it's OK to call purple things purple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 7:28 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 373 (739613)
10-25-2014 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Colbard
10-24-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Guessing about guesses
Since I heard of evolution, the time periods for the beginning of our world and the universe have been increasing at an exponential rate ...
No. Perhaps you shouldn't base your arguments on stuff that you've made up.
It won't be long before all those who hold on to today's theories will be old fashioned, delusional and so wrong.
Not long, eh? Well, perhaps you would like to put money on it. How much will you bet that in a year's time, the scientific consensus on, let us say the age of the Earth, will have changed by more than, let us say 20% ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Colbard, posted 10-24-2014 9:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 94 of 373 (739614)
10-25-2014 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2014 9:42 PM


So the topic has invited some clarification or insight into the nature of the universe.
So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
However, if you have not and are just reflecting the thoughts and opinions of others, the popular material that's already out there, then you have nothing to say except whatever is fashionable and accepted.
I am fairly certain that "anything outside the box is delusional" is not really science, but I could be wrong. maybe it is a cult that needs trumpet blowers, warning of the invasion of thoughts outside the fortress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 9:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 10:24 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 10:30 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2014 9:24 AM Colbard has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 95 of 373 (739615)
10-25-2014 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Colbard
10-25-2014 10:15 PM


So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
However, if you have not and are just reflecting the thoughts and opinions of others, the popular material that's already out there, then you have nothing to say except whatever is fashionable and accepted.
And some of us have done our own research. (Have you?)
Half my grad school study was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. The other half was archaeology.
I notice you won't answer questions as to when modern humans originated. I am willing to bet that's because you think it was about 6,000 years ago, but won't say so.
We have evidence from both fossil man and archaeology to show that the 6,000 year scenario is false.
Care to present your evidence, and let us present ours?
Or are you just going to hide behind phony math and obfuscation, and continue to ignore what we post in return?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:15 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:00 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 373 (739617)
10-25-2014 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Colbard
10-25-2014 10:15 PM


So the topic has invited some clarification or insight into the nature of the universe.
So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
However, if you have not and are just reflecting the thoughts and opinions of others, the popular material that's already out there, then you have nothing to say except whatever is fashionable and accepted.
Interesting. Have you yourself in fact conducted any scientific research, or are you just here to parrot things you've heard other creationists saying?
I am fairly certain that "anything outside the box is delusional" is not really science
I am fairly certain that it's not really what anyone said, either, and that anyone who pretends it is would be a god-damned liar and a fool.
---
Now, about that bet? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:15 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 97 of 373 (739622)
10-25-2014 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2014 10:30 PM


"god damned liar and a fool" are religious terms, and not science, the very thing you claim to uphold?
Are we talking in a scientific community or in a cult?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 10:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 11:05 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 98 of 373 (739623)
10-25-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
10-25-2014 10:24 PM


"Fossils" in your own belief system are not significant when it comes to the age of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 10:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:09 PM Colbard has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 373 (739624)
10-25-2014 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Colbard
10-25-2014 10:57 PM


"god damned liar and a fool" are religious terms, and not science, the very thing you claim to uphold?
Are we talking in a scientific community or in a cult?
One does not have to be a member of a cult to call a liar a liar and a fool a fool.
Normal people know this and do not need to have it explained to them.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:57 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 373 (739626)
10-25-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Colbard
10-25-2014 11:00 PM


"Fossils" in your own belief system are not significant when it comes to the age of the universe.
Your response makes no sense. In that, it follows most of your posts.
Would you care to try again?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:00 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:13 PM Coyote has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 101 of 373 (739628)
10-25-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
10-25-2014 11:09 PM


The thread topic in part deals with the age or beginnings of the universe, in your realm of thought fossils would have been very rare at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:16 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 11:18 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 373 (739629)
10-25-2014 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Colbard
10-25-2014 11:13 PM


The thread topic in part deals with the age or beginnings of the universe, in your realm of thought fossils would have been very rare at the time.
Not necessarily. I suspect that in your cosmogony the age of modern humans and the universe are the same, ca. 6,000 years ago.
So, fossils would have been available from the beginning.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:13 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 373 (739630)
10-25-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Colbard
10-25-2014 11:13 PM


The thread topic in part deals with the age or beginnings of the universe ...
Whereas your first post on this thread dealt in part with the age of the Earth. (And was stupid as all fuck, but I think that that point has been established, let's not flog a dead horse.) So I guess Coyote thought he'd reply to you about the stuff that you were talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:13 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 104 of 373 (739633)
10-25-2014 11:46 PM


I know what you don't consider stupid, it's what you have been exposed to, and not by a small measure either.
The amount of info that we have personally found to confirm or add to modern theories is practically zero, it has all been handed down to us, from childhood.
So "stupid" is anything outside of these perimeters. The evidence for modern theories comes from having a system of thought and attitude, one which requires intellectual codependency, all subject to some peer reviewed material handed down to us. Who are these peers anyway? Are they superior in intellect?
A system of thought can have all its teachings backed up to each other so that nothing can squeeze in, and yet the entire thing could be false without anybody seeing it. Religions work like that. It is not that there are no obvious flaws, but that any opposition to it is rejected by the adherents.
It works like this, - topic "A" has a problem. But it can't be wrong because B and C support it.
Then what if B has a problem? - but it has already been established by A and C so that B is not wrong.
What if A B and C are wrong? - its not possible, because it has taken us centuries to reach these conclusions and how could the majority be wrong after all this time and research?

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 105 of 373 (739634)
10-26-2014 12:00 AM


Maths can be used to describe or make a model of anything. Say for instance a toilet roll, it can even account for its printed patterns using fractals.
Mathematics is like clay, it can be molded.
In describing the universe and the BB, things are squeezed, compressed, expanded, warped, inverted, diminished, exploded, segregated. Every process takes place, and all of these processes can be derived mathematically, but it does not prove the case at all, rather it just shows that if you have notion, and work hard with maths ans physics, and theories, then you can achieve a model that will convince many.
But somewhere in this tower is a brick that does not fit, a brick in a crucial place that renders the whole structure false.
It will stand for a while until someone finds the flaw.
And in modern science, the very founders of certain theories have had to go back on their word, even while the world continues to believe and work with the theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by 1.61803, posted 10-28-2014 10:10 AM Colbard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024