|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dad writes: The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable.Science does make declarations. In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid. So can we go back and check the first life form? No. They look at this nature and how little lifeforms may act or evolve here. They have no capacity to go back and check if people recorded in history lived. They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew. They just look at the present. They cannot go back and check what processes went on with isotopes. They look at processes that go on today. Basically their models are are 'what if' scenarios based on nature being the same (and there being no creation, since they use what exists now to model how it all came to exist) There can be no denying it is belief based. Of course there is. You just made all that BS up. It is fiction.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2
The author is a physicist. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
None of this has anything to do with what time is like in deep space.
As for things in labs or about the solar system area (Mercury, etc) these are irrelevant to deep space.As to observing laws today and seeing how small changes would mess things up, also irrelevant since the nature that would have changed was not this one but the former one, we would be the change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Of course you are wrong and can't make a case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
I quoted from what you mistakenly claimed was either information or relevant. The basis for tree ring dating is assuming a same nature in the past. Period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I don't have to make the case. It has been made by millions of scientists over the past 200 years. The case continues to be made every day confirming that there is no reason to doubt the things we observe and measure about the Universe.
Despite you, scientists will continue trying to learn more. Your silly fictional BS will have no influence over what we study, how we study it, or how we report our findings. I consider myself really lucky to live in a golden age of discovery, with unprecedented refinements in the resolution and precision of our measurements and observations. I pity your lack of critical thinking and skepticism.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: Great. Stay down then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And we would see the repercussions of that change. In deep space and in the Solar System and on Earth. The partial list of items I posted covers all three of those places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
basis for tree ring dating is concluding a same nature in the past from the mountains of evidence.
Fixed it for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature. The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable. Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false.
dad writes:
You're backwards again. I'm sensing a trend. In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid. The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence. THEREFORE, they're considered to be fact. It's all about the evidence. Evidence first, then conclusions.
dad writes:
Sure they can. They can look at trees living and dead. They can look at wood from trees that were cut down before any trees that are still living were alive. They can even look at fossil trees. We have a beautiful specimen in our local museum, polished like a gravestone and you can count the rings as if it was cut down yesterday. They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew. And don't forget the correlations between completely different methods. Are you ever going to take an honest look at RAZD's correlations?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
It's not a belief. It's a conclusion based on the available evidence. You're the one who believes nature changed when you don't have a shred of evidence for that. So when all ages are based on a belief that nature on earth was the same... But I'm glad you agree that belief is a bad thing."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
If the change was on earth we would not see it in deep space. If it was not this nature that changed, but a former nature, we would not see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: If you claim that belief in a same nature in the past is falsifiable, then show us how.
quote:No. They are not. They rest only on beliefs. quote: Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow. Seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1360 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
False. It is not based on any evidence. Science doesn't know either way. If I offered support for a different nature in the past it would not be using science since science does not know either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If the change was on earth we would not see it in deep space. If it was not this nature that changed, but a former nature, we would not see it.
Prove it (insofar as anything is proven in science). Repetition isn't proof.. I've supported my claims. You have no meaningful response.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024