Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
evidence for God. part one
Topic Started: May 19 2009, 03:48 AM (764 Views)
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Mike
May 19 2009, 04:32 AM
Ok. that makes sense so far. I wonder how they know with certainty just how old the universe is?
Primarily through the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the constraining of the Hubble Constant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mike ""I wonder how they know with certainty just how old the universe is?""

me "Science doesn't claim to. Another straw man."

Mike "Actually it does claim that. The figures are included in articles written by scientists. "

me "Show us, Mike, don't just make claims. Any scientist worth his weight will tell you science is temporary, incomplete, probabilistic. Newton's Laws were enhanced by Einstein's General Relativity which is today being refine--temporary. Scientific models cannot model themselves--incomplete. Ever since Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle it's been probabilistic."

Mike "I googled up the question Chris and found quite a few articles where scientists, using models have claimed the universe to be about 13.75 billion years old. So Chris, your statement that scientists don't offer up such evidence is false. In fact, they used age of the universe to explain their big bang theory. Until it too was refuted. "

Not sure how you can get a discussion so distorted, Mike. I didn't challenge anything about scientists offering evidence. I challenged you on your claim scientists are certain. They are not. And you produce evidence they are not: "about 13.75 billion years old". About? Plus or minus a few million. You call that certainty?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Not sure how you can get a discussion so distorted, Mike. I didn't challenge anything about scientists offering evidence. I challenged you on your claim scientists are certain. They are not. And you produce evidence they are not: "about 13.75 billion years old". About? Plus or minus a few million. You call that certainty?

Nuances lost on the scientifically impaired.

Now certainty comes with Bishop Ussher who dated creation on what? October 23, 4004 BCE? Of course, he was a bloody Prod and the Roman church never accepted the number.

Actually, I think Ussher's was a considerable feat working with the evidence he had at hand. I no more castigate his explorations than those of early people who considered the earth flat. Look at it and it LOOKS flat.

But, that doesn't let off the hook those who ignore generations of investigation by very brilliant people and, in the face of all that evidence - STILL think the world is 6,000 years old. We've talked about willful ignorance before.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I agree that no scientist would attest that the universe is a defined age. But they have given estimates that differ from one another by billions of years. So one should surmise that Science is very limited in it's ability to discuss matters relating to the age of things in our universe. More than a little inaccurate would be a good way to define science. Of course science and scientists are limited by the frailty of the human condition. the mind never will be capable of grasping reality, but rather limited to poking around the edges when it comes to understanding the creation of God.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
ngc1514
May 19 2009, 09:41 AM
Quote:
 
Not sure how you can get a discussion so distorted, Mike. I didn't challenge anything about scientists offering evidence. I challenged you on your claim scientists are certain. They are not. And you produce evidence they are not: "about 13.75 billion years old". About? Plus or minus a few million. You call that certainty?

Nuances lost on the scientifically impaired.

Now certainty comes with Bishop Ussher who dated creation on what? October 23, 4004 BCE? Of course, he was a bloody Prod and the Roman church never accepted the number.

Actually, I think Ussher's was a considerable feat working with the evidence he had at hand. I no more castigate his explorations than those of early people who considered the earth flat. Look at it and it LOOKS flat.

But, that doesn't let off the hook those who ignore generations of investigation by very brilliant people and, in the face of all that evidence - STILL think the world is 6,000 years old. We've talked about willful ignorance before.
When one throws around a label such as willful ignorance, is it intended as a personal attack or is it based on proven irrefutable evidence? The reason i ask is simple. If anyone here is going to rely on scientific arguments, while at the same time labeling a creationists as ignorant, then they should be prepared to defend every one of their arguments in a first person basis, not on some scientific theory not proven beyond the shadow of doubt by others.

And remember, in all experiments where you might assume you have proven a fact, that since there is only one universe and earth you are using as a lab that there still exists the possibility that other universes and planets have not been used in comparative analysis. or even the fact that as science continues to explore this universe and this earth, that new areas such as anti matter may throw all assumptions to the wind.

In other words, while I admit to limited scientific knowledge, at the same time I question others credentials as well. if one is going to argue biology for instance, then they had better be able to give first hand experience, not rely on data that it is not possible for me to ascertain to be true or false. I not only have no means to qualify the expert being relied on or his/her credentials.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
When one throws around a label such as willful ignorance, is it intended as a personal attack or is it based on proven irrefutable evidence? The reason i ask is simple. If anyone here is going to rely on scientific arguments, while at the same time labeling a creationists as ignorant, then they should be prepared to defend every one of their arguments in a first person basis, not on some scientific theory not proven beyond the shadow of doubt by others.

I consider willful ignorance to be that which is demonstrated by taking a position without learning ANYTHING about the evidence supporting positions other than one's own. I'd willing apply the label to myself were I debating creationists without having read some of the books cited most often by creationists. These would include the bible (well, duh), Morris' The Genesis Flood, Behe's Darwin's Black Box and his Science and Evidence for Design and Johnson's Darwin on Trial.

So, before going any further, I'd be interested in your own reading list showing you have made an effort to understand the arguments of the opposing side in the science v. creationism argument.

The fact that you insist on using "proven" with scientific theories is a red flag that you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is. The primary philosophers of science are Thomas Kuhn with his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Without having at least a glancing understanding of what these men wrote, you keep falling into the "proven" trap of theory.

At the most fundamental level, a scientific theory is NEVER proven (how many times does this need be written here?), only disproven.

Science recognizes the difference between a model (a theory) and the thing itself. Science does not care - at a fundamental level - about the thing itself, only how closely the model predicts the actions, responses and future of the thing itself. The best example of this is quantum theory. There does not appear to be any thing itself in quantum theory that can be understood in any means other than the mathematical expression of quantum theory. There is no deep reality behind the theory, but the theory is 100% accurate (the only theory which is) in predicting the results of quantum experiments.

So... back to the willful ignorance. What have you read that gives the scientific side of the science v. creation debate?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mike
May 19 2009, 06:35 PM
I agree that no scientist would attest that the universe is a defined age. But they have given estimates that differ from one another by billions of years. So one should surmise that Science is very limited in it's ability to discuss matters relating to the age of things in our universe. More than a little inaccurate would be a good way to define science. Of course science and scientists are limited by the frailty of the human condition. the mind never will be capable of grasping reality, but rather limited to poking around the edges when it comes to understanding the creation of God.
"But they have given estimates that differ from one another by billions of years."

Mike, which is it, scientists are certain, as you earlier claimed, or uncertain as you now claim?

What is odd about your argument is you denigrate science for both, in short, no matter what science is, you reject it.

"So one should surmise that Science is very limited in it's ability to discuss matters relating to the age of things in our universe. More than a little inaccurate would be a good way to define science."

I would agree 100%. But then I think you miss the point of science, which is, I think, to provide explanations of how the universe works, how things happen. From that we have an entire world of technology. So, you see, science works.

"Of course science and scientists are limited by the frailty of the human condition. the mind never will be capable of grasping reality, but rather limited to poking around the edges when it comes to understanding the creation of God."

Here I agree 1000%. And throw in the same for knowing, comprehending, understanding God. Man is far too limited. He can say he believes this or that about God, but he cannot know it to the degree he can show it. This is really all I've ever argued with you over the last several months since I joined your forum.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

"When one throws around a label such as willful ignorance, is it intended as a personal attack or is it based on proven irrefutable evidence?"

Yeah, well, we can always hide behind taking things personal, can't we? Why does this always happen? This is not a discussion about you or me or Eric. It's a discussion about God, and evidence for God. Let's be objective.

I think a lot of what Eric and I do in response to breeze's pasted blather is use it as evidence show that what's pasted is demonstrations of willful ignorance. But Eric has already addressed that. You come up with a reading list of science, and I'll come up with a reading list of creationists I've read--I make it a point, because many creationists on forums actually even misrepresent other creationists!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
In other words, while I admit to limited scientific knowledge, at the same time I question others credentials as well. if one is going to argue biology for instance, then they had better be able to give first hand experience, not rely on data that it is not possible for me to ascertain to be true or false. I not only have no means to qualify the expert being relied on or his/her credentials.

None of us are scientists nor are any of us claiming to be. The beauty of science is the accessibility of the data that leads to the conclusions. Given the time, training and money - ANYONE can perform the same experiments and verify the data. You can walk outside tonight with a watch and telescope and using Ole Romer's 17th Century technique, measure the speed of light to a fair approximation. Or using simple equipment you can replicate Robert Millikan's experiment that, in 1909, measured the charge of an electron and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

If you have billions in your pocket, you too could launch a satellite to measure the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Most of us don't have the money and so science has moved into the realm of BIG science with the Hubble Space Telescope, the Large Hadron Collider, Cerro Tololo InterAmerican Observatory and even your own Vatican Observatory.

You see, we - you and I - don't have to ascertain whether data is true or false. The peer review process lets other scientists do that for us. Scientist A publishes a result and scientists, being scientists, will attempt to duplicate the result. If so, the initial result gains credence, if not, the initial result is pulled and Scientist A ends up with egg on his face. (It's a lot more complex, but you get the idea.)

Imagine this were not so. Every new physicist would have to spend his entire life duplicating the experiments of those who preceded him in order to have that "first hand experience" you seem to require. Nothing would ever be accomplished. First hand experience may be your requirement, but it's not the requirement of science. If you want to understand science you should have some understanding of how science gets done.

To drop the ball back in your court: how much "first hand experience" do you have about the creation of the universe? Or do you "rely on data hat it is not possible for me to ascertain to be true or false?"


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
ngc1514
May 19 2009, 08:20 PM
Quote:
 
When one throws around a label such as willful ignorance, is it intended as a personal attack or is it based on proven irrefutable evidence? The reason i ask is simple. If anyone here is going to rely on scientific arguments, while at the same time labeling a creationists as ignorant, then they should be prepared to defend every one of their arguments in a first person basis, not on some scientific theory not proven beyond the shadow of doubt by others.

I consider willful ignorance to be that which is demonstrated by taking a position without learning ANYTHING about the evidence supporting positions other than one's own. I'd willing apply the label to myself were I debating creationists without having read some of the books cited most often by creationists. These would include the bible (well, duh), Morris' The Genesis Flood, Behe's Darwin's Black Box and his Science and Evidence for Design and Johnson's Darwin on Trial.

So, before going any further, I'd be interested in your own reading list showing you have made an effort to understand the arguments of the opposing side in the science v. creationism argument.

The fact that you insist on using "proven" with scientific theories is a red flag that you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is. The primary philosophers of science are Thomas Kuhn with his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Without having at least a glancing understanding of what these men wrote, you keep falling into the "proven" trap of theory.

At the most fundamental level, a scientific theory is NEVER proven (how many times does this need be written here?), only disproven.

Science recognizes the difference between a model (a theory) and the thing itself. Science does not care - at a fundamental level - about the thing itself, only how closely the model predicts the actions, responses and future of the thing itself. The best example of this is quantum theory. There does not appear to be any thing itself in quantum theory that can be understood in any means other than the mathematical expression of quantum theory. There is no deep reality behind the theory, but the theory is 100% accurate (the only theory which is) in predicting the results of quantum experiments.

So... back to the willful ignorance. What have you read that gives the scientific side of the science v. creation debate?

I haven't read a science book for decades. My line of reasoning however, allows me to ask those who support certain theories to provide me with proof. Now i grant that there is evidence supporting evolution on some levels. But there is not evidence to support it on all levels.

So continuing on with my questions here, am I to assume that you yourself have never conducted any of the research, but rather depend on the testimony of others in their books? And a followup question. Are their any scientific studies that dispute the positions you defend?

The reason for this line of questioning is to get to a base point in your scientific argument. And I think this post of yours does so quite well. That science cannot with certainty make sweeping statements concerning evolution. And that science only in the end, offers up opinions based on observation.

Now concerning quantum theory. is it possible that the mathematical expressions might not take into consideration unknown factors that could render the theories obsolete?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis