Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 9:02 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, RAZD (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,347 Year: 15,383/19,786 Month: 2,106/3,058 Week: 480/404 Day: 84/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Crack-Pot Ideas that still hold water
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 54 (242156)
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


I'm thinking this should slide on into "Is this science?"

I've recently, and repeatedly, had a few of my ideas flat out ridiculed by people who called them "ridiculous" and "idiotic". Perhaps these ideas aren't "scientific" but I personally feel that they stand up perfectly well by certain standards of YEC science.

I'd like to present a few of them here to see if anyone can disprove them. Also, if you have any ideas, I'll try to knock those down if you like.

1) Downward Pusher - Gravity is not a law. What we "believe" is gravity "attracting two objects with mass" is simply the downward force exherted upon us by the Intelligent Pusher. It is through his devine providence that we don't go spinning out into space.

2) Upside Down Evaporation - Many of the features of the Great Flood don't stand up against modern geology, however, this is because geologists are assuming that the waters of the Flood behave like water we see today on Earth. My assertion is that these waters actually evaporated from the bottom up - thus salt deposits could form underneith other layers, erosion could happen backwards, etc.

3) Random Species POP-ulation. New species randomly POP into existance. (usually with the audible sound). This accounts for why so many species that exist today don't exist in the past. It also allows for different species without macro-evolution.

Anyone wanna take a stab at these.

By the way, I know some of you think I'm being silly here, but I honestly KNOW these to be true, so good luck proving me wrong.

Also, I read these in a book.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:00 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:07 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:45 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 25 by joshua221, posted 09-12-2005 8:26 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 39 by RoyLennigan, posted 09-24-2005 2:08 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 46 by Omnivorous, posted 09-26-2005 1:26 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-28-2005 5:31 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 54 (242173)
09-11-2005 12:53 AM


Are you serious?
Im not sure if youre serious or joking. Ill have to check with the other admins on this one.


"...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 1:16 AM AdminJazzlover has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 54 (242179)
09-11-2005 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJazzlover
09-11-2005 12:53 AM


Re: Are you serious?
Well, if I say I'm serious, you pretty much have to take me at my word.

My larger point is this - my arguments are just as valid as anyone elses. I'd like to see someone try to disprove them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJazzlover, posted 09-11-2005 12:53 AM AdminJazzlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminJazzlover, posted 09-11-2005 1:49 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 54 (242184)
09-11-2005 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 1:16 AM


Re: Are you serious?
Ok Ill trust you and I'll take your word. Now where can I put this.


"...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 1:16 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 54 (242185)
09-11-2005 1:51 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 6 of 54 (242187)
09-11-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


POP goes the weasel?
Yeah, I'll give it a try...

3) Random Species POP-ulation. New species randomly POP into existance. (usually with the audible sound). This accounts for why so many species that exist today don't exist in the past. It also allows for different species without macro-evolution.

Why don't we observe the popping now?

And what about conservation of energy? Is there any descriptive law you can derive from the POP events that describe how energy changes in the system (both locally and universally)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:54 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:15 AM Ben! has responded

    
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 7 of 54 (242189)
09-11-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


Divine Pusher
1) Downward Pusher - Gravity is not a law. What we "believe" is gravity "attracting two objects with mass" is simply the downward force exherted upon us by the Intelligent Pusher. It is through his devine providence that we don't go spinning out into space.

You're not saying "gravity is not a law." You're simply giving a mechanism to gravity. The same descriptive law (gravity, in the Newtonian formulation, is simply a descriptive law) holds.

Can we know anything more about the pusher? Why does the pusher push? Does the pusher ever get bored and not push? Why does the pusher choose to ignore objects that are far, far away? And why does the pusher vary the amount of pushing as 1/r^2? Wouldn't 1/r be an easier calculation? Is the pusher some kind of math wiz?

Also, how does the pusher do measurements of distance, to determine exactly how much to push? How long do these measurements and subsequent calculations take? Does that show up as a lag time in how the pusher adjusts his/her pushing after a change in distance between the two object occurs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:54 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:19 AM Ben! has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 8 of 54 (242190)
09-11-2005 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Ben!
09-11-2005 2:00 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Why don't we observe the popping now?

You are assuming uniformism. Your entire world view is nothing but assumptions built ontop of other assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:00 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:22 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 14 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 09-11-2005 2:47 AM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 9 of 54 (242192)
09-11-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
09-11-2005 2:07 AM


Re: Divine Pusher
[qs]Can we know anything more about the pusher? Why does the pusher push? Does the pusher ever get bored and not push? Why does the pusher choose to ignore objects that are far, far away? And why does the pusher vary the amount of pushing as 1/r^2? Wouldn't 1/r be an easier calculation? Is the pusher some kind of math wiz?

Only through prayer can you truly "know" the pusher.

The pusher's choice to push is beyond your understanding. To question it pusher is to break one of the divine rules. (specially #7 Thou Shalt Not Question The Pusher)

The pusher never "bores" but the pusher does choose to not push some types of balloons. Also, he pushes less hard on birds and clouds.

The pusher doesn't ignore far away objects, he just focuses his pushing more on us, as we are his primary responsibility.

The pusher doesn't bother with math or equations. In fact, to try and quantify the pusher is also a violation of #7.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:07 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 09-11-2005 2:24 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:26 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 27 by hitchy, posted 09-12-2005 9:41 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 10 of 54 (242194)
09-11-2005 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 2:15 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Yes, you're right. That is an assumption. In place of any observation, we have to make assumptions in order to make predictions. Good thing we have this new observation; it informs us that in fact things are NOT uniform over time. Good to know.

Is there any predictability to when these changes take place? Can I know when the popping will start again? Is there any determination behind it?

Also, when species go extinct, do they make a noise?

Finally, how can a food chain, and the interdependence between organisms work in this case? Was there an order of POPping such that animals lower on the food chain popped first? Seems it must have been; if you POP a lion with no meat to eat, the lion dies. Or was the lion a herbivore before?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:15 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:47 AM Ben! has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 11 of 54 (242195)
09-11-2005 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Divine Pusher
The pusher's choice to push is beyond your understanding. To question it pusher is to break one of the divine rules. (specially #7 Thou Shalt Not Question The Pusher)

But then how can we make predictions based on pushing?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:19 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 12 of 54 (242196)
09-11-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Divine Pusher
The pusher never "bores" but the pusher does choose to not push some types of balloons. Also, he pushes less hard on birds and clouds.

lol.

How does the pusher handle the atmosphere?

And if I'm not supposed to question the pusher, how will I get to know the pusher? What's prayer?

Is it possible to push the pusher? I like to push things that are annoying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:19 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 3:02 AM Ben! has not yet responded

    
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1853 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 13 of 54 (242200)
09-11-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 10:54 PM


Enough tooling around...
I mean, it's fun, I'll probably play around some more.. for the same reason we all love puzzle games.

Nuggin,

What is the purpose of science?

It seems like you think the purpose of science is to find truth. But I completely disagree. Science cannot tell us about truth. It can only help us create models of the world we observe. Those models help us manipulate the world.

But the models themselves need not be truth. In fact, there's an infinite regress; you will never get an model or mechanism behind every part of another model. At some point you accept something as "irreducable", or you simply keep basing your mechanisms on a "yet to be known" mechanism.

In physics, I guess the "irreducable" would be atoms. Oh, no, wait, protons and neutrons. Crap. Quarks. No? Gluons? Strings?

And a "yet to be known mechanism" ... what is "randomness" in quantum theory? Or is that just taken as "irreducable"?

Science says nothing about truth. Occam's razor ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with truth, and EVERYTHING to do with building models to predict and manipulate our world. When it comes to building modles and doing computations, keeping things simple with the least amount of assumptions serves us well. In the face of multiple competing theories, you want the computationally least involved one. You want the most easily extensible one. You want the one that has less mechanisms to change when your model inevitably breaks, because all models are fundamentally descriptions of what we have not yet observed, and new observations consistently do not fit within existing models. That's why the scientific method is so powerful--we can make progress in spite of all this.

But when it comes to truth... there's no way to determine which is the "best", or which is "right." The rules for choosing one "truth" over another are very different for those of choosing one model over another. Why do you think scientific models have anything to do with truth?

I'll give you an example. One truth says nothing about the question, WHY? For those who want an answer to this question, for those who are dissatisfied with having no answer, how is a "truth" with no answer better than a "truth" WITH an answer to this question?

Your argument rests fundamentally on saying that Occam's razor applies to finding "truth." That's a complete misuse of the principle. It's a practical principle about empirical theories. Occam's razor is not useful for that which is not empirical.

I'll stop here for now. I'm not pulling your chain Nuggin. I'm speaking seriously.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 10:54 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:56 AM Ben! has responded

    
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3846 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 14 of 54 (242201)
09-11-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Nuggin
09-11-2005 2:15 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Nuggin writes:

You are assuming uniformism. Your entire world view is nothing but assumptions built ontop of other assumptions.

That doesn't quite cut it for me. From my spanish dictionary(a cheap one by the way) it says:

Uniformismo = Tendencia a hacer que varias cosas de la misma clase sean iguales o semejantes entre sí.

Translated to english it says; Tendency to make various things of the same class become equal or similar between them.

I dont see how this answers Ben's question of why dont we see poping right now.


Viva Puerto Rico Libre. Colonialism is an international crime
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:15 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 3:00 AM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 15 of 54 (242202)
09-11-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ben!
09-11-2005 2:22 AM


Re: POP goes the weasel?
Can I know when the popping will start again?

The day will come when there is a great Popping, and all those who believe will be taken away.

Also, when species go extinct, do they make a noise?

There is some debate. It's either a Crackle or a Snap.

Finally, how can a food chain, and the interdependence between organisms work in this case?

This is a good question. It seems likely that they popped into existance in order from simpliest to most complex. But they did so over an incredibly short amount of time (Approx 22 minutes.)

Of course, time worked a lot different during those 22 minutes (see above issues with your bias towards uniformism).

Perhaps you'd like to make a donation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 2:22 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-27-2005 9:55 AM Nuggin has responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019