Limits of Science

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. 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.It might be a valid philosophy, but it is a philosophy that is different from science. 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. 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.The more independent lines of enquiry that consistently give the same answers, the less likely it is to be coincidence.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 12-April-2006 09:39 AM

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).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.And so I am left with the conclusion that Andromeda is at the very least several hundred thousands year old.Comments?[Edit: changed distance of andromeda from several hundred to several hundred thousand... doh!]This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-12-2006 08:27 AM

So it is fair to say that your initial assumption for variance in physical laws come from a text written either, in a time when the physical laws operated differently or after said times.If they were written in the time of non standard physical laws they're relevance to today would be small. If written afterwards how could they accurately reflect what once was?This all hinges on the assumption that the bible is factual evidence. This is a Science Forum thread: please provide evidence tha the bible can be used in this way on this forum.

---

quote:

---

This is the bottom line when science of today is attempted to be applied to the future, or even far past!

---

This is because not all possible scenarios for the history of the earth are consistent with what we observe today. For example, the special creation of the earth only 6000 years ago and a global flook about 4500 years ago would suggest we should observe certain things about the world today. These observations are not seen, and, in fact, contradictory observations are seen, and so special creation 6000 years ago and a subsequent global flood can be ruled out as reasonable hypotheses.-

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.

---

If you are speaking of a literal reading of Genesis, then you don't. A literal reading of Genesis contradicts what we see in the world today. A literal reading of Genesis would suggest that we should see certain things today in the geologic and archaeologic record that we do not see.-

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'

---

A statement, if true, does not imply that its converse is true. There is good reason to expect that an arbitrary assumption about the past will contradicted by evidence: the evidence exists in many different fields of science, and is collected and examined under many different methodologies. It would be quite remarkable that an incorrect assumption about the past will be supported by so many varied lines of evidence.-

quote:

---

You can assume otherwise, but you also need to prove it.

---

That the assumptions lead to a consistent history of the world that is supported by physical evidence is all the "proof" that we need. This is all that is required. Newton did not have to do experiments on every single planet in the universe to "prove" his universal law of gravity. Merely pointing out the evidence that was accessible to him and his contemporaries was enough for its acceptance.-

quote:

---

Cause what we see is exactly what is expected as well if the spiritual was seperated from the physical.

---

Actually, I don't see how any kind of "spriritual" explains the consistency of radiometric dating, why we see stars that are farther than 6000 light years away, or why all known species can be classified in a hierarchical classification scheme.Of course, you can assume otherwise. You can assume that people can really fly by jumping off of buildings, and you can claim that it only seems otherwise because of "the spiritual was seperated from the physical", but I wouldn't recommend putting this assumption in practice.It would be much safer to put your assumption about the history of the world into practice. Put forward a very detailed scenario of the history of the world, as well as how the detailed evidence in geology, biology, and astronomy that we actually see is produced in the course of your history.It'll be big book, probably several volumes, but should be worth reading.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

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? Why does it matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that? 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.When I drop an anvil, I make an assumption that what has happened in the past is still going to happen. It isn't neccessary for me to support that assumption before I do my experiment. So I drop the anvil and it falls towards the ground. I can assume that every time I drop an anvil it will fall and that at no time in the past would it not have fallen. I don't have to support those assumptions. Lets say I'm wrong and at some point in the past an anvil was dropped and it did not fall towards the ground. So what? I'm still not gonna have my foot under it when I let it go. It doesn't matter if I'm absolutely correct about every anvil drop ever, as long as they keep falling my prediction holds true and everything is ok. No support for the assumtion is neccessary. Its only when the anvil does not drop that I need to question my assumtion. 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.

Awww.You went and said it so much better than I did.

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. I could tell you that everything that exist was created this morning exactly as it is now with the illusion of age. Could you prove I am incorrect? It does not make any sense in my opinion to doubt evidence that is based on good scientific methodology . If you jump off a building today and break your leg. Whats to stop you from jumping the next week if not for the fear of a repeat example of gravitys affects on you? Can you prove the next time you jump you will fall? Or that there will be a different gravitational affect? No? Then why not jump? That was the past. You jumped last week. This is a new week. Why the hesitation? What is influencing your decision?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Don't feel bad, I used to get paid to say it

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!!!!!

Okay simple, if it was spiritual in the past why does all the physical evidence point to a physical existence lasting 13.7 billion years.Is it because the evidence is:
1) A coincidence.
2) A deception.

Simple, you need to check my post from last month Message 75The 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... 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.This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-12-2006 05:49 PM

You are correct. Well, they are not baseless. They are based on the assumption that what we see today is what has always been. Nope. Don't have to as long as the predictions continue to hold true. There's no reason to assume otherwise. Impossible. BTW, Adam didn't actually exist. Genesis is a fairy tale. Prove me wrong. Not when they are assumed to be the same. Science has no reason to assume otherwise.