Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1741 of 2370 (878789)
07-04-2020 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1738 by dad
07-04-2020 1:34 PM


Re: the world that then was
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1738 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 1:34 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1744 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 5:39 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1742 of 2370 (878790)
07-04-2020 2:38 PM


We don't ASSUME the past was the same
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2
The author is a physicist.
quote:
Frankly, physicists are not, for the most part, interested in silly creationist arguments. But they are interested in basic questions such as whether physical constants or laws change in time -- especially if such changes are proposed by such a great physicist as Dirac. As a result, there has been a great deal of experimental effort to search for such changes. A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich, Physical Review D41 (1990) 1034 and Physical Review D44 (1991) 3096; a more recent reference is Uzan, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 403, available electronically at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340 . Among the phenomena they look at are:
  • searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
  • searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
  • ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
  • data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
  • observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
  • the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
  • experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
  • absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
  • laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle;
  • searches for geological evidence of "exotic" decays, such as double beta decay of Uranium 238 or the decay of Osmium to Rhenium by electron emission, which are impossible with the present values of basic physical constants but would become possible if these changed;
  • laboratory comparisons of atomic clocks that rely on different atomic processes (e.g., fine structure vs. hyperfine transitions);
  • analysis of the effect of varying "constants" on primordial nucleosynthesis in the very early Universe.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1743 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 5:38 PM JonF has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1743 of 2370 (878794)
07-04-2020 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1742 by JonF
07-04-2020 2:38 PM


Re: We don't ASSUME the past was the same
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1742 by JonF, posted 07-04-2020 2:38 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1748 by JonF, posted 07-04-2020 7:08 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1744 of 2370 (878795)
07-04-2020 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1741 by Tanypteryx
07-04-2020 2:37 PM


Re: the world that then was
Of course you are wrong and can't make a case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1741 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-04-2020 2:37 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1746 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-04-2020 6:36 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1745 of 2370 (878796)
07-04-2020 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1740 by JonF
07-04-2020 2:20 PM


Re: KT layer versus 4500 years ago
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1740 by JonF, posted 07-04-2020 2:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1749 by JonF, posted 07-04-2020 7:10 PM dad has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1746 of 2370 (878799)
07-04-2020 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1744 by dad
07-04-2020 5:39 PM


Re: the world that then was
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1744 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 5:39 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1747 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 6:45 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1747 of 2370 (878800)
07-04-2020 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1746 by Tanypteryx
07-04-2020 6:36 PM


Re: the world that then was
quote:
I don't have to make the case.
Great. Stay down then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1746 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-04-2020 6:36 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1748 of 2370 (878802)
07-04-2020 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1743 by dad
07-04-2020 5:38 PM


Re: We don't ASSUME the past was the same
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1743 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 5:38 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1752 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:34 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1749 of 2370 (878803)
07-04-2020 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1745 by dad
07-04-2020 5:40 PM


Re: KT layer versus 4500 years ago
basis for tree ring dating is concluding a same nature in the past from the mountains of evidence.
Fixed it for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1745 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 5:40 PM dad has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1750 of 2370 (878805)
07-04-2020 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1738 by dad
07-04-2020 1:34 PM


Re: the world that then was
dad writes:
The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable.
Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature.
Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false.
dad writes:
In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid.
You're backwards again. I'm sensing a trend.
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:
They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1738 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 1:34 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1753 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1751 of 2370 (878806)
07-04-2020 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1735 by dad
07-04-2020 1:23 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible" ...
dad writes:
So when all ages are based on a belief that nature on earth was the same...
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.
But I'm glad you agree that belief is a bad thing.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1735 by dad, posted 07-04-2020 1:23 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1754 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:40 AM ringo has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1752 of 2370 (878809)
07-05-2020 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1748 by JonF
07-04-2020 7:08 PM


Re: We don't ASSUME the past was the same
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1748 by JonF, posted 07-04-2020 7:08 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1755 by JonF, posted 07-05-2020 8:26 AM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1753 of 2370 (878810)
07-05-2020 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1750 by ringo
07-04-2020 9:10 PM


Re: the world that then was
quote:
Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature.
Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false.
If you claim that belief in a same nature in the past is falsifiable, then show us how.
quote:
The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence
No. They are not. They rest only on beliefs.
quote:
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.
Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow. Seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1750 by ringo, posted 07-04-2020 9:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1757 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 9:20 AM dad has replied
 Message 1758 by Phat, posted 07-05-2020 10:03 AM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1754 of 2370 (878811)
07-05-2020 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1751 by ringo
07-04-2020 9:14 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible" ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1751 by ringo, posted 07-04-2020 9:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1756 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 9:00 AM dad has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1755 of 2370 (878813)
07-05-2020 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1752 by dad
07-05-2020 2:34 AM


Re: We don't ASSUME the past was the same
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1752 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:34 AM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1762 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:50 PM JonF 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