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:   Limits of Science
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 81 (303635)
04-12-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Son Goku
04-12-2006 5:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Son Goku, posted 04-12-2006 5:31 PM Son Goku has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 81 (303636)
04-12-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by cavediver
04-12-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Gottcha
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 04-12-2006 5:32 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 9:23 AM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 81 (303638)
04-12-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Pony Up
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2006 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2006 10:24 AM simple has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 81 (303671)
04-12-2006 8:02 PM


This will go around and around in circles.
So let's us assume you're right.
It looks precisely like it should under a seperation into a physical only universe 4400 years ago as well.
So explain to me how it looks precisely like it should given a separation 4400 years ago?
Or:
Can you explain to me the precession of the perihelion of mercury?
Why fossils show a slight decrease in the amount of elephant seal males who take part in reproduction?
Heck, give me an example of anything which this assumption can explain over the usual scientific one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 9:30 PM Son Goku has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 81 (303706)
04-12-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Son Goku
04-12-2006 8:02 PM


wow!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Son Goku, posted 04-12-2006 8:02 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 4:39 AM simple has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 81 (303739)
04-13-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by simple
04-12-2006 4:56 PM


Independent lines of evidence converging on a common explanation
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.
I still don't see how this has anything to do with the three reasons I could think of for the multitude of independent lines of enquiry providing us with a consistent history. 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.
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.
The monk's (Occam's) razor cuts in my favor. Us being in a temporary state is the simplest answer.
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.
That's not how it works. In your reality you have these entities of note:
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.
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.
But for you to claim the past was spiritual only requires solid evidence you don't have.
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 - so if the world wasn't the same in the past (ie spiritual) then the transition from spiritual to physical must have perfectly 'generated' a massive history. I don't believe in coincidences and I don't believe that a state transition from spiritual to physical would coincidentally invent a perfectly consistent history.
Coincidence out the window, we are left with deception, or that the history is real.
You say you don't need it, and, if all it remains is an assumption and belief, you are right you don't.
I don't say I don't need it. Some of your answers show that you are not understanding my position. If you are not clear on it, please ask questions.
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.
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.
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.
THANK YOU!!!! That is all it proceeds on! Think about it, yet you can't support it.
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.
Science rejects these two lines of reasoning until some evidence of them is presented.
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.
Your number 4) is my number 2). The past must have been different in such a way as to coincidentally create a consistent billions of years long history...regardless of the method you use to test it. For the counter idea to have merit enough to be seriously considered by science (enough that the constant physical assumption could be in doubt) you'd need to explain how:
Tree rings give us 10k years. How has the past changed to give us this picture?
An entirely different series of physical phenomenon giving us 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica. How radiometric dating gives us the same results. How genetic clocks point to the same direction. Why coral dating gives us the same history. There are many many more. (RAZD's dating thread for examples). 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.
Science uses parsimony discards uneccesary entites for which no evidence exists (ie no good reason). Our 'agent' is an entity that is cut away so we are left with a massive coincidence or an accurate age.
As a side note you used the word 'unprovable'. Every single assumption that is ever made in science is unprovable, so this assumption is no different. Some assumptions that science makes can be show to be reasonable as above. Some assumptions cannot be shown to be reasonable without circular reasoning or the like. These axioms exist but they do not mean science is not science.
Unless they are all making the same type of mistake, that leads to similar wrong answers.
If they all made the same type of mistake, that would a) be a gigantic coincidence or b) would result in wildly different inconsistent dates. The physical processes behind the different dating methods are radically different, so making the same mistake would not result in a consistent history. That is why emphasis has been placed on independent lines of evidence coming to the same conclusion...science is big on independent lines of evidence, and prehistoric sciences are no different.
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!!!
Yes, but that is because Omphalotic ideas don't actually explain (or use) the evidence, they basically just say it exists. Science explains evidence not just 'accounts' for it. 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.
My beliefs are as good as yours.
I'm not saying otherwise. This isn't a philosophical pissing contest. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 4:56 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 4:16 AM Modulous has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 81 (303744)
04-13-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Modulous
04-13-2006 3:05 AM


Common Misconception
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 has
1) 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) Etc
Where 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 3:05 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 10:01 AM simple has replied
 Message 43 by Codegate, posted 04-13-2006 10:16 AM simple has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 38 of 81 (303747)
04-13-2006 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by simple
04-12-2006 9:30 PM


simple writes:
When the spiritual is seperated from the physical, the physical only part looks just like this!
Same goes for when the Star Wars part was separated from the mundane part. The X-Wings, Super Star Destroyers, Galactic Empire, and Jedi all went bye-bye. All that was left was this universe, which is boring in comparison.
What you're doing can be expressed by a pretty simple formula:
X+Y-Y=X
You arbitrarily add a Y to the universe, then arbitrarily remove it.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-13-2006 04:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 9:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:12 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 81 (303750)
04-13-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by DominionSeraph
04-13-2006 4:39 AM


simple writes:
quote:
When the spiritual is seperated from the physical, the physical only part looks just like this!
Same goes for when the Star Wars part was separated from the mundane part. The X-Wings, Super Star Destroyers, Galactic Empire, and Jedi all went bye-bye. All that was left was this universe, which is boring in comparison.
No, fiction of a movie, or a claim that the past was physical only doesn't go far without reality and evidence. Your attempts to sillify all but your own baseless assumptions, however are noted.
quote:
What you're doing can be expressed by a pretty simple formula:
X+Y-Y=X
You arbitrarily add a Y to the universe, then arbitrarily remove it.
I do not remove ant real Y's. Only the ones you try to sneak in there cloaked as science, yet as feeble a fable as one could forge. Here is a real simple formula for you. If you claim the past was PO, and that it is science, put your evidence where your mouth is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 4:39 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 40 of 81 (303824)
04-13-2006 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by simple
04-12-2006 5:30 PM


Re: Like a Glove
Care to respond to my post?
# 18
This message has been edited by Larni, 04-13-2006 09:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 5:30 PM simple has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 41 of 81 (303827)
04-13-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by simple
04-12-2006 6:19 PM


Re: Gottcha
It is naturalistic, and physical, here, and in the far stars. No one here disputes that!
You seem to be missing the point here.
If you accept that the evidence we can directly measure from distant stars (today) shows that the light that we see (today) was generated under identical conditions to those we observe (today) and you also accept that the speed of light is constant (today) and has been so for at least a few thousand years then how did the light from these distant stars (millions of light years away) reach us?
If the universe changed to the way it is now only a few thousand years ago then that light could not possibly be here yet. That means that the light started its journey longer ago than a few thousand years right?
Since we can directly measure the physical conditions in the star at the time the light was originated, this means that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years. The only other explanation is that the photons of light were deliberately created already in transit to us with the intent to simulate great age.
That just makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 6:19 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 3:53 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 81 (303844)
04-13-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by simple
04-13-2006 4:16 AM


Re: Common Misconception
Long as you aren't suggesting you can support and evidence a PO past. You can't.
Testing something works along these lines.
1. Assumption: The earth is old.
2. Evidence: radiometric dating
3: Testing: Find an alternative dating method and perform tests against radiometrically dated things. If this dating method agrees with radiometric dating our confidence is increased that the dates are accurate.
4: Repeat testing for as many alternative methods as you can
5: Result: So far many many many many dating methods have been employed and they come back with results that agree with radiometric dating (and by extension each other).
This is science. You don't have to agree with science, but disagreeing about whether it is science or not based on some alternate philosophy doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
Well, we can more or less prove many things in science. We can prove gravity exists.
We can't prove gravity exists, we are just massively massively sure it does. After all - are you forgetting the Intelligent Pushers?
Magnetism, electricity
Intelligent pusher I'm afraid. Alternatively they are all the deluded illusions of a coma victim, and they don't exist at all.
For all intents and purposes, beyond reasonable doubt
This is the problem. You might consider it beyond reasonable doubt. I consider the age of the earth/universe etc as being beyond reasonable doubt. It seems one can hypothesis a spiritual early universe that manifested into physical form in order to demonstrate the doubt is not reasonable. By this reasoning I invoke the Intelligent Pusher hypothesis to do likewise.
We can both agree such an argument is weak. The evidence that demonstrates an old earth/universe is massive, you don't think it is. That does not make it not science. We use science to test the recent past, but that is not scientific either - after all if I test something that happened 1,000 years ago, how can I be sure that the universe wasn't spiritual then and our history has become muddled and wrong...or were forged?
What about one century ago, last Thursday? The argument that the universe was brought into physical being at some point in the past with the appearance of age is problematic. You seem to be picking one age arbitrarily, but any age might be the case by the same reasoning.
Actually your scenario has
1) 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) Etc
They don't all seem like entities to me. How can ignoring the spritual known factor be an entity? Let's work through them.
1)An unevidencable past, based solely on assumption
Actually, that's your hypothesis. What I was putting forward was a universe that has a past which leaves evidence. So we're still in our 4-d universe model.
2) A mechanism/agent where it was in a speck hot soup for no apparent reason
That sounds like a theistic evolutionists position more than my own. I propose no agents but a 4-d universe, this 'speck hot soup' represents but one region of coordinates within this entity.
3) A fudge factor to try to explain all from the imagined pat
An entity! Fortunately science doesn't try to explain all things that have happened. It tries to develop the best explanations based on what evidence exists. Many events have happened that have left ambiguous evidence or the evidence of it has been destroyed or diluted. As such, my model does not contain a fudge factor that you describe.
4) Predictions of the future based on the same assumptions of the same same same for no apparent reason
That isn't an entity. The future, the past and the present are all part of the 4-d object I propose. If you think the reason isn't apparent I don't know what to say. One of the cornerstones of science is the ability to predict. If the universe's rules change our prediction will of course be wrong. We have no reason to suspect the rules will change, and if they were to change then we would not bee able to make predictions. As such we have a choice of producing tentative predictions based on what we know now, or makin no predictions.
Science, as ever, opts for the pragmatic approach of making tentative predictions.
5) Ignoring or denying the spiritual known factor
Not an entity. Nor is the spiritual factor 'known'.
Where mine is simple,
1) God created, and we are in a temporary seperated state.
So you have a God as one entity, then you have a creation by God which is in two parts which were once together but are now seperate. The evidence just happens to line up to indicate an old universe. So you have God, two states seperated from one another and a fudge factor for the dating evidence. Looks like more than one entity.
I make a belief claim where science ends. It is you and only you who claim science backs up your PO past!
Peculiarly I am not alone. Scientists, the people who practice science, agree with me that science does not end at some arbitrary time and there is an abundance of evidence from independent lines converging to the same history.
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
Right, perfectly possible scenario. What we need to do is test to see if there are other methods that do not rely on the same physical processes that give dates that agree. We can also take an event that happened say 100,000 years ago (for example supernova 1987) and radiodate the emissions from that. We can take coral reefs, tree rings, genetic clock, ice cores, and so on and so forth and find they all agree.
Either this convergence is a coincidence, by design, or it demonstrates something about the universe.
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.
I've provided the evidence, the massively accurate convergence of many indpendent lines of evidence that suggest the same thing. As always, since this is science, the conclusion is tentative - but right now its the best explanation for the evidence. If you'd like to present a better one, go for it. Remember not to add unfalsifiable entities for no reason (without evidence).
No physical only trace other than the physical only universe we see, which is the trace! That's a hec of a trace.
Indeed, but any explanation for the universe can say 'the evidence is that it is here'. I of course was referring to internal indicators, since we only have what is within the universe as evidence that helps us piece together explanations about the universe.
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.
Couldn't agree more! My explanation has evidence, as provided. Your merged past has no supporting evidence. We need some kind of merging agent and at least one other agent to explain the convergent evidence for an old earth. Any evidence of their existence, or is it merely a fairy tale, as you call it?
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.
So, they grew pre split. No problem. I assume they grew at some other 'rate', which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process. Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm?
The rest of your explanations for the dates are the same kind of ad hoc stuff. The problem is not explaining an individual piece of evidence, that's easy - I could have guessed at the answers you gave. Your answer was basically "Things were different then". They avoided the central point I was making by tackling it all seperately.
The central point was not 'explain this one thing, explain this other thing' it was 'explain how all these dramatically different physical processes were all different in the past in such a manner as to give the same results'. That's the evidence, the pattern of the whole, not each result on its own.
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.
Yes, they would be expected if it was only one type of clock we were using, but we aren't. Many different lines of converging evidence rejects your hypothesis. Maybe its still true, but it has one hell of a sequence of coincidence to account for.
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.
And this needs work. Are you suggesting now that the processes behind ice core build up and radioactive decay and corals and trees were all the same processes in this spirity world? This inverts your problem. Now we have sudden physical processes springing into existence that happen to agree with one another about how old they are.
I explain it, you are the one who says the PO past 'just existed'!!
I am just going where the parsimonious solution to the evidence leads. The way of science really is to pick the simple solution (The dates line up because they are all right) rather than the solution filled with hypotheticals that are untestable (eg a spirit world that manifested with the appearance age).
No physical evidence for or against.
I think this might be a useful time to repeat the line I started on here. There is an abundance of evidence for an old universe beyond whatever arbitrary time you choose within the last 10,000 years or so. All this evidence agrees with all the other evidence. You have offered no explanation for this congruence that would indicate your model as being accurate.
On the other hand, my explanation is parsimonious and explains all the evidence and is falsified by none. It even makes predictions which can be tested. This is not proof, but it is a strong indication that we might be on to something. Why abandon that line of enquiry just because of some hypothetical fairy land that some guy once thought of? Why abandon it because some other guy thinks that reality only exists as long as he has been in it, thus every piece of history beyond the past several decades is fallacious? Why abandon it for some idea that the physical and the spiritual were once joined and were seperated at some other time period?
What evidence is there that any of this happened, or is it ad hoc reasoning?
Oh, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest the past was PO! All evidence is simply looked at with that belief.
Which is why we propose tests of our assumption. We find an independent dating method. If we're right the dates should match up. Its a test, it will never prove our assumption valid, but assumptions are never proven valid. It will give us more and more confidence that the assumption is fair and produces consistent results.
Baseless belief I might add. And we can't call that science, now can we?
We certainly can't call that science. As it stands though, our assumptions have been tested in a variety of creative ways and the results are consistently supportive of the concept that our assumption is valid. That is science, in all its tentative glory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 4:16 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 5:19 PM Modulous has replied

Codegate
Member (Idle past 817 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 43 of 81 (303854)
04-13-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by simple
04-13-2006 4:16 AM


Re: Common Misconception
I would really like to hear an expaination from your point of view refuting the claims from RAZD's dating thread (Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)). The information that he presented was very compelling. The fact that there are numerous methods using completely different methodologies for dating the Earth back many many thousands (millions) of years while all agreeing with each other is facinating. I'm having a difficult time coming to grips with how this could all be coincidence, which is what I believe you are saying. This implies to me that if we do live on a young Earth, God must have created it with the intent that we believe it was more then 6000 years old. Why would he/she do that to us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 4:16 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 4:13 PM Codegate has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 81 (303858)
04-13-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by simple
04-12-2006 6:29 PM


Re: Pony Up
I know, and that alone just doesn't cut it. An assumption and a dollar might get you a doughut.
You could take that line and apply it to your assumption that a spiritual world even existed at all.
I don't know what predictions you are talking about.
quit dodging.
And you disagree with the bible to boot!
There's a lot of ridiculous stuff in the Bible that I disagree with.
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.
Do you even concider how valuable this {fishbowl, baseless} philosphy is! How much technological advancement has resulted from it! Thats the predictions I'm talking about. The assumption works. Science is kicking ass. It doesn't matter if it fails to recognize the spirit world. It isn't interested in it and it is doing fine without it. It has no reason to concider its existance.
The only reason you have a problem with it is because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. But science should not limit itself to one religions assumption about what might have existed in the distanct past. Why pick your religion? Why not pick the scenario form The Lord of the Rings? For that matter, instead of me proving that your proposed spirit/physical past occured, why don't you prove that it didn't happen the way Tolken described it? Or that your scenario didn't happened just last week? It is because you can't. Science will continue to ignore ridiculous explanations as long as the ones it is using continue to hold up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 6:29 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 81 (303971)
04-13-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
04-12-2006 5:39 AM


What it Ain't
quote:
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.
My initial reaction was to look to science, but they can not go there save by belief and assumption. Therefore it must remain an unknown until such a time as they can.
Meanwhile, I have the advantage of the ancient documentation that records the history of the universe, and it's future, and so I use that rather than your nothing. I welcome all to go ahead, and use nothing if they wish, and leave it unknown. It's up to you what you use where science is left behind. The good news is that it does fit the evidence we do have.
quote:
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?
OK, they are not science, so unless one has an interest in the writings, they can't help you there.
I accept that the record was there before the written record. That was like a time when God made a copy from the heavenly hard drive, and faxed it down to us. The record represents the only connection man has with that past pre split!
quote:
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.
It can't, you must remain in darkness, and admit you simply do not know. You are welcome to use any belief you wish to try to explain it, as many use old age beliefs, just don't call it science, please!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 5:39 AM Larni has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024