Limits of Science

(Is it science area)Empirical evidence, and testibility, and observation I like. These deal with things in the present, and several thousand years in the past. Of course it also only deals in the natural, as science does. The assumption is that the past and the future also will be physical only as this present is. They say the present is the key to the past.I propose that this assumption is not science. We do not know. If I believe that the bible indicated a past and future that included the spiritual, altering the state of matter, and fabric of the universe, I claim science has nothing to say about it. This is of course true.Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!It cannot. I challenge anyone to do so.This message has been edited by simple, 04-11-2006 04:00 AM

As much as you will need to provide is the scientific evidence for your alleged present in the past state, or that there was never some altered state of matter. But I think we know that this is beyond the limits of natural science. Hence the thread, thank you.

quote:

---

Only several thousand years in the past? That seems rather arbitrary.

---

Recorded history has limits. The history of science has limits. Science has limits.

quote:

---

Actually, science only deals with things in the present. Science is based on evidence, which can only be phenomena that occur right now. However, we can infer the past from observing the present. Not every concievable past is possible given what we know about the present.

---

Thank you!!! perfect! Infer, assume, believe. This is the bottom line when science of today is attempted to be applied to the future, or even far past!

quote:

---

This involves making assumptions about the past, of course. However, the remarkable thing is that it leads to a very consistent history of the earth and the universe.

---

So what? I have another. Absolutely.

quote:

---

There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will not be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence.

---

Finish the line of thought here, let's be honest. 'There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence'

quote:

---

The assumption that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, or that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago is contradicted by evidence we see today.

---

False, it is supported only by assuming the past was the same as the future, which has no emphirical evidence at all! [quote] By recognizing that we understand the geologic processes that formed the statigraphic layers in the geologic record, ...[/qyote]
No, in no wat whatsoever! We understand the processes that NOW form the statigraphic layers. We cannot say it was exactly the same, only assume and that is not science.
See, I assume the laws of physics then did not apply, but the universe was also spiritual, like the future of the bible will be. You can assume otherwise, but you also need to prove it. At least solidly support it. How do you know there was gravity, decay, present light, and present physical only matter?? This is the question.

quote:

---

That these assumptions that we understand how these processes operated are consistent with all the evidence that we have is remarkable -- it would an amazing coincidence that nature is such that we could reconstruct such a detailed, consistent, yet wrong history of the planet.

---

And amazing it is! Cause what we see is exactly what is expected as well if the spiritual was seperated from the physical.
Now, assumptions aside, and belief, what does the actual evidence tell us? In the present, it is clear, we are in (what is now) natural universe, or physical. It, however DOES NOT tell us that it will be so in the future or far past. That is puny, irelevant, mere assumption.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if science is absolutely correct as long as its predictions hold true.
.

---

The bible predictions hold true, are they science also? My predictions hold true as well, what we see is what is expected if there was a seperation of spiritual and physical. I predict the geological column is a YEC phenomena. Mostly laid down pre flood. It does matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that. --Like the sun will burn out, or the earth, or our galaxy crash into another one day. It matters if they predict the past was the same but can't prove it.

quote:

---

I cannot. And I don't think your gonna find someone who can. It isn't necessary.

---

Says you. I say you are wrong. You make a claim and call it science you must back it up. Really.

quote:

---

Why would SCIENCE assume otherwise?

---

Why would it assume it was physical only? If it assumes the tooth fairy placed the universe in a speck, and waved it out, that is fine as an unproven, and baseless assumption. If it claims it as MORE than an assumption, it had darn well better pony up the evidence-period.

quote:

---

....But as others have pointed out it is superfulous to doubt evidence on the bases of our inablility to measure. If that were the case we would never learn anything. IMO.....

---

I do not doubt evidnce in any way, I doubt assumption and baseless belief as relateds to the future, or far past. No foot was there to drop things on. We don't even know there was gravity as we know it here, now do we? Prove it.

quote:

---

There are only three reasons that spring to mind for the evidence to consistently point to the history that science has accepted:

​

1) Its real.
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.

---

Depends on how far back you mean. If you mean last week, yes we know all about that. We have witnesses, records, history, etc. If you mean pre flood, or about 4500 years ago, that is a different story.

quote:

---

No evidence has been uncovered that would indicate deception.

---

This means nothing, except we are unable to detect more than the physical now, and have been since science started. Nevertheless, most of the world acknowledges a spiritual in one form or another. Who can say it will not be a closer part of the physical universe one day, or was not in the past, this known quantity?

quote:

---

are you suggesting that assumptions mean something is not scientific?

​

The assumptions are supported by the evidence and not rejected by any of it. Thus they are kept until such a time as they are rejected.

---

If the assumptions involve the observable, and present, and testable, no. If they are baseless ideas of the future or past that just assume a universe that is not temporal, as the bible says this one is, and that the present is the be all end all, yes, they are not in any way science!

quote:

---

I'm not sure how that relates to the section you quoted. I gave three reasons that I could think of that would explain the consistency of the independent lines of enquiry with regards to the history of earth. If you think there are other possibilities I'd like to hear them. I don't see what witnesses have to do with what I said.

---

I was talking about some claiming we were created last week. For that we have loads of evidence. If you mean the far past, no we only assume it was physical only as the present. You can't prove it.

quote:

---

It means one thing: It gets removed by parsimony. Science doesn't propose more entities than are required to explain a phenomenon. It is irrelevant that many believe in the spriritual. Your hypothesis might be true, but any Omphalotic idea might be too. Until the idea has practical use, its not science.

---

The monk's (Occam's) razor cuts in my favor. Us being in a temporary state is the simplest answer. But for you to claim the past was spiritual only requires solid evidence you don't have. You say you don't need it, and, if all it remains is an assumption and belief, you are right you don't. If you want to rest old age theories on it, and claim it as science you do need to back it up. Until then this belief in the past and future you have might be a valid philosophy, but it is a philosophy that is different from science.

quote:

---

Fortunately our assumptions either fall in that category, or most of them don't. The age of the earth for example is based on the assumption that the earth has proceeded in the past as it does today.

---

THANK YOU!!!! That is all it proceeds on! Think about it, yet you can't support it.

quote:

---

We can test that today using an entirely different line of enquiry. If the entirely different line of enquiry produces the same result then either:

​

1) The earth is that old
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.

---

Or, 4) The past was different than the present. So all bets are off on things based on the unprovable assumption it was the same. You can believe what you want, it is NOT science, except falsely so called, as it is baseless, save for this assumption.

quote:

---

The more independent lines of enquiry that consistently give the same answers, the less likely it is to be coincidence.

---

Unless they are all making the same type of mistake, that leads to similar wrong answers. I also use all evidence you do, bar none, and consistanly arrive at a different conclusion, because the starting assumption that cannot be prioved is different!!! My beliefs are as good as yours.

quote:

---

Excellent. So when I stare up and observe the Andromeda Galaxy, I notice that it is made up of the same types of stars that make up our Galaxy. Those stars are observed to behave exactly as our neighbouring stars behave. By simply looking at the angular size of Andromeda on the sky (about four times the width of the moon) and making the most liberal estimates of the minimum possible separation distances of the stars in Andromeda, I conclude from trigonometry alone that Andromeda must be at least several hundred thousand light years away (from more comprehensive observations we know it is 2.2 million lyrs).

---

Excellent. I agree, of course, as I like evidence as I said. I have no quivel with the distance, or the speed of our present light in this natural universe!!!!

quote:

---

We also see processes occuring in the stars in Andromeda that are identical to the processes we see in the Sun and neighbouring stars. The speed of light is critical to the rate of these processes, and we see these processes occuring at the same rate in Andromeda. We can only conlcude that the speed of light is the same there as it is here.

---

Yes! I know! And, so?

quote:

---

And so I am left with the conclusion that Andromeda is at the very least several hundred thousands year old.

---

Yes, I am left with the conclusion if it was a physical only universe in the past this would be the case. Now, since you can't prove that, why, you have no case, except, again your forever unprovable belief it was the same!!!!!!!! Got it?I reach elsewhere, beyond the fishbowl of science, where it cannot go. I chose to look to the bible.There I see it will be, and was a different universe! I see this one will pass away, and is temporary as well! The fabric of the universe will be and was different, this is not the created state! There is other light than the one we know, no decay, as there now is, and all kinds of differences. But no need to explore here with you, the intricacies of all that. All we need concern ourselves with is that you cannot claim science supports a physical only future or past, it is ALL speculation. I kid you not.

quote:

---

It matters to you but it doesn't matter to the scientific community. And whats with your hipocracy of telling me I have to support my claims while you aren't supporting yours?

---

I am! My claim is that any claims of the future or far past as being either merged or physical only are not supportable! You can't do it, no one can, it is a belief, an assumption only with no basis whatsoever in reality, except, 'gee, that's the way it now works, guess it always will' Calm down, with the vitrolic will you?

quote:

---

Why does it matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that?

---

It matters that it predicts things against the majority belief in some countries, with NO proof! This is new to you? If you want to say the sun will burn out, when the bible says it is forever, or our galaxy will crash, when the bible says God is going to move to earth to live forever, no, we don't want, many of us, children being taught baseless fantasies!
Deut 4: 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

quote:

---

What am I wrong about? What claim did I make? (that it doesn't matter?) Rather than just saying you disagree, you should say why you disagree.

---

You said it was not necessary to back up the claim that the past was the same, and natural only as the present. If all old ages are based on the premise, you absolutely must.

quote:

---

No support for the assumtion is neccessary. Its only when the anvil does not drop that I need to question my assumtion.

---

Great, and I make the same assumption, and it is a good one. Now prove it was the same in Adam's day?! That is a different story.

quote:

---

Because that is all it can detect. It is limitied to things it can use and ignores the things it can't. Now, it may not be describing the 'absolute truth' of all this, but it has made wonderful advancements and if its predictions hold true, it does not matter (to science) if it is absolutely correct

---

But they hold true for me as well, cause the real ones deal with the present. No one questions these. The future and far past is another matter.

quote:

---

Would you accept the behavior of the tides as evidence to the presence of gravity in our distant past? Would you accept Newtons experiments centuries ago as evidence of past gravity behaviors. How about Dr. Einstien? No. I think you will simply
state that these example prove nothing.

---

In what way do tides give us this precise record you claim? As for Newton, of course I accept his work, he lived in the present, so to speak. I am talking beyond 4400 years ago, what ya got for that? (4400 real years, not based on the assumptions of decay in the past, I say there was none!)My own beliefs, that go where science can not go any further, are that the created universe was spiritual and physical, and got seperated into our present physical only state about 100 years after the flood. In the future, it will again be restored to the original eternal state. Science cannot support this any more than it can support your physical only past claims, of course. But it fits all the evidence!!!!!

Because it doesn't unless we assume it was only physical in the past, which can't be proved! It ALSO points very very well to a merged past!
No deception.

quote:

---

Simple, you need to check my post from last month Message 75 (Thread The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.)

---

The people you refered to there said things like God placed the fossils, I say no such thing. They are real, I don't dispute real evidence.

quote:

---

The point is, why do all these observations tally up so well to produce such a consistent picture? I agree that your scenario is possible, but I would expect to see a mess as we push observations back towards the fall...

---

Because they all make the mistake of being fooled by thinking it was always the same. It looks precisely like it should under a seperation into a physical only universe 4400 years ago as well. Why believe old agers unless they can prove it?

quote:

---

Who arranged everything so that it all looked so perfectly naturalistic? I can think of two possibilities, but either way I can only conclude that it is a form of deception. Which is why I am led to the conclusion I made in that other post.

---

God seperated it, so it now just not LOOKS physical only here, and 'natural' as we think of it now, but it IS that way. It is naturalistic, and physical, here, and in the far stars. No one here disputes that!

quote:

---

My claim is that any claims of the future or far past as being either merged or physical only are not supportable! You can't do it, no one can, it is a belief, an assumption only with no basis whatsoever in reality, except, 'gee, that's the way it now works, guess it always will'

​

You are correct.

---

Interesting.

quote:

---

Well, they are not baseless. They are based on the assumption that what we see today is what has always been.

---

I know, and that alone just doesn't cut it. An assumption and a dollar might get you a doughut.

quote:

---

Nope. Don't have to as long as the predictions continue to hold true. There's no reason to assume otherwise.

---

I don't know what predictions you are talking about. If we look at something like the geological column, we might predict where certain fossils are found near ceratain layers, we might find oil. Since in the different past it was quickly laid down, pre flood, most of it, this means it is a YEC prediction now!!!! See, it simply recognizes a pattern in the created world, and makes a prediction, the ages are purely imagined all the way.

quote:

---

Impossible. BTW, Adam didn't actually exist. Genesis is a fairy tale. Prove me wrong.

---

I know you are Catholic, but I still take God's word over yours, especially with all this admitting, in effect. that you have no clue, no evidence and no case!!! And you disagree with the bible to boot!

quote:

---

Not when they are assumed to be the same. Science has no reason to assume otherwise.

---

Ha. Thank you! Talk about a fishbowl, baseless philosophy! I get a kick out of people admitting it.

quote:

---

So explain to me how it looks precisely like it should given a separation 4400 years ago?

---

When the spiritual is seperated from the physical, the physical only part looks just like this! Now, for example spirits are seperate, we can't usually see them, let alone marry them. Then, they could. Yet most people in the world still realize there is a seperate unseen spiritual! See, I don't need to ignore this world of evidence, and hide my head in the sand.
Also, there was no decay, as the spiritual and physical together are eternal. Now, sure enough, there is decay, as expected. That daughter material that now comes from a decay process was there before, but in another process, that's how it got there. Etc. All evidence fits. All we do is omit your unprovable starting assumption that this physical only universe is the be all end all.

quote:

---

Can you explain to me the precession of the perihelion of mercury?

---

Einstein's theory can. Hope that will do, a nice theory it is. If we compare the physical only universe to a big box, that has certain limits, we could call that the PO universe. (Physical Only) Since the split, we are in that box, and the theory of relativity explains it pretty good. Pretty well as expected. Just remember, that it only is relative to the box, though. Right now, the stars, and planets, are all in the box, and so we expect them to follow the rules there! As Mercuery is seen, apparently, to do.

quote:

---

Why fossils show a slight decrease in the amount of elephant seal males who take part in reproduction?

---

How far back does the observation go? If it has something to do with evolving, I can tell you, i think evolving and adapting was one of the traits of creation! Not only that, but the evolution rates pre split were super fast. All starting from creation, which was 6000 or so years ago.

quote:

---

Heck, give me an example of anything which this assumption can explain over the usual scientific one.

---

Oh, that's easy!!! Science of the fishbowl is so limited, that from outside that bowl, it is very easy to see.It explains how the flood was real, the rapid continental seperation, the flood waters being taken off the planet, and the sort of canopy that existed perhaps, why spirits used to be closer, and lifespans used to be large, how plants like trees could have grown in days, and so so so much more. It explains the universe is temporal, and will pass away, this PO heavens. It explains why the sun will never burn out, and how we will actually really live forever, and... well, that's a taste for you.This message has been edited by simple, 04-12-2006 09:31 PM

quote:

---

We don't have loads of evidence for the Omphalos hypothesis or its cousins - but there is no evidence against it. It is unfalsifiable.

​

This is in stark contrast to the assumption of physical past.

---

Long as you aren't suggesting you can support and evidence a PO past. You can't.

quote:

---

I'm confused by your challenge re 'proving it'. You are in the science fora not the maths fora. Science doesn't prove anything, it gives explanations with high levels of confidence which can be used to make predictions.

---

Well, we can more or less prove many things in science. We can prove gravity exists. Magnetism, electricity, etc. For all intents and purposes, beyond reasonable doubt. Technically of course we use different terms, like evidence. I can check out how fast certain materials decay.This brings us to the far past and future. No can do there. Not at all. We simply assume it is the same, and start guessing from there. Can't test that puppy. Can't observe it. Can't taste or smell it. Can't stick in in a microscope. Can't say this universe is not temporal. All you can try to say is that IF it always stays the same, THEN it would be ...such and such.

quote:

---

Then the entirety of existence is a dream and only one entity exists. I have reduced my explanation to two entities (a dreamer and a dream), therefore my hypothesis is the strongest.

---

No, it isn't a dream, it is temoporary, and the true natural state we never yet even seen. The dream is thinking it will always be just this.

quote:

---

1) A physical present
2) A non-physical past
3) A mechanism/agent to transform these states
4) A fudge factor to line all the evidence up to present a consistent history.

​

In mine:

​

1) A four dimensional physical universe.

---

Actually your scenario has1) An unevidencable past, based solely on assumption
2) A mechanism/agent where it was in a speck hot soup for no apparent reason
3) A fudge factor to try to explain all from the imagined pat
4) Predictions of the future based on the same assumptions of the same same same for no apparent reason
5) Ignoring or denying the spiritual known factor
6) EtcWhere mine is simple,
1) God created, and we are in a temporary seperated state.

quote:

---

In parsimony you shouldn't add entities without good reason. What reason do you have for piling these entities on? Since we are talking about science here, you'll need something along the lines of evidence.

---

I make a belief claim where science ends. It is you and only you who claim science backs up your PO past! Since YOU are talking about science here, you'll need something along the lines of evidence. Absolutely. Otherwise, as I say IT IS NOT SCIENCE in any true sense.

quote:

---

I don't claim that, I think you got it backwards. My evidence for a physical past is quite simple. We have radically different methods of dating that come to the same conclusion

---

Whoops, no, of course, you claim the physical only past, not spiritual. That is then what you need to support. Not by assuming it was the same.
That, by the way, of course, is all those dating methods do. See, if there WAS no decay, but the daughter material was already there, produced or involved in another process, then it did NOT get there (as it now does) by decay after all. Therefore show me ONE of these methods that does NOT assume a physical only past!!! You can't. If all you do is make the same wrong assumptions in different areas, is it any wonder the results may be close?! Like if I assume everyone in my class was a jerk, everything they do might look a certain way to me.

quote:

---

You'll have to explain how the old universe concept does not explain all the evidence or how it is falsified by some of it. That is essentially what the scientific philosophy is all about - developing explanations for what we see.

---

It does not explain the spiritual. It does offer an explanation for the physical, but SO WHAT? - So does the merged past. Explanation alone without evidence could be the cousin of fairy tales.

quote:

---

You can create any alternative philosophy and it would remain as valid. For instance the spiritual/physical split philosophy. Its valid, but it is unfalsifiable - it proposes entities that leave no trace.

---

No physical only trace other than the physical only universe we see, which is the trace! That's a hec of a trace.

quote:

---

Consistency. There's no reason for it. Either the universe is physically old or the evidence just happens to line up or some agent caused the evidence to line up. Pretending that its all coincidence that 10 different types of evidence point me as the guilty party in court would get me nowhere. Trying to say that an unknown and unidentifiable agent who left no evidence, framed me, would get me even less far.

---

If the past was different we would expect in box interpretations of evidence agree to a great extent. But that is not all that agrees. It ALSO agrees with being in a PO state, that used to be different. What you need is sommething to try to lock it down to having to only have been in the present PO state. That is what you sorely lack, and always will, cause it was in another state. Just as it will be again.

quote:

---

Science rejects these two lines of reasoning until some evidence of them is presented.

---

Speaking of evidence, consider your claims in need of it.

quote:

---

you'd need to explain how:

​

Tree rings give us 10k years. How has the past changed to give us this picture?

---

Easy! Trees used to grow in days pre split. Trees were created on day 3, and we ate them on day 6. Also, Noah sent out a bird, no trees. About a week or something later, another one-lo and behold, a tree with a fresh leaf, and olive! The light also was different, so present photosyntesis was different. Therfore, tree rings only serve as a marker for true age a century after the flood! That's how.

quote:

---

An entirely different series of physical phenomenon giving us 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica.

---

Physical ans spiritual, perhaps, if it was pre split. The laws of physics (physical only) did not exist.

quote:

---

How genetic clocks point to the same direction.

---

Genetics were different, as we lived near a thousand years, and were able to reproduce with close relatives at the time. Also, it appears there was hyper evolution, according to bible records.

quote:

---

They all involve different physical principles...so there is no reason for them to agree on their dates unless either some agent did it deliberately or their dates are accurate.

---

Easy to see the errors if we realize the past and future was merged. The fabric of the universe being different does that, and you can't evidence it was the same.

quote:

---

If they all made the same type of mistake, that would a) be a gigantic coincidence ..

---

No, a common misconception, all using the present as a guide to a place it does not in any way apply. Those errors are expected.

quote:

---

The physical processes behind the different dating methods are radically different,

---

Only within the physical only box. None does anything but assume it was PO back then, this means they are all in the same fishbowl.

quote:

---

Yes, but that is because Omphalotic ideas don't actually explain (or use) the evidence, they basically just say it exists.

---

I explain it, you are the one who says the PO past 'just existed'!!

quote:

---

If you can explain the evidence and develop a consistent history which, using your methodology, would lead me to the same conclusions, then you'll have yourself a fairly decent philosophy.

---

Been there done that.

quote:

---

You are saying that making a certain assumption in science is not scientific because it is baseless. My counter claim is that the assumption is valid from a science point of view because:

​

1) There is no evidence to suggest the assumption is erroneous.
2) There is evidence that suggests the assumption is valid.

---

No physical evidence for or against. It goes both ways. Yet I have the ace up my sleeve of the evidence of an almost universally known spiritual factor on my side as well.
Oh, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest the past was PO! All evidence is simply looked at with that belief. Baseless belief I might add. And we can't call that science, now can we?