• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

why we do not believe secular scientists

Status
Not open for further replies.

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
IOW: most of what is passed off as scientific fact is not fact, but is only a best guess. Thank you for validating my point.


Theories are based on evidence. Facts are not negotiable, theories are.

Does water boil at 100 degrees at 1 atmosphere? Yes or No? Is that negotiable or a best guess? Yes or No?

You really should just ask questions and get a clearer understanding of the terminology here before you make statements like this.

You are confusing terms and their meanings.

Name something that is accepted as scientific fact that is anything close to a 'best guess'?

You do understand that observation of evidence and repeatability of predictions is not 'best guess', right?

What temperature did water boil at yesterday? What temperature will it boil at tomorrow?
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Quote shernren: Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant with respect to observers in an inertial frame.{yet there is no true vacuum in the natural universe for us to make this observation.}
Maxwell's equations state that the speed of light in a medium is less than its speed in a vacuum because the permittivity and permeability of the material are different from that of free space.{IOW: the speed of light is not constant since there is no true vacuum in nature}
Einstein's theory of general relativity states that light's paths are affected by gravity as they might be affected by observation under acceleration, not in an inertial frame.{Gravity is present at every point in the universe in varying degrees - hence the speed of light constantly changes and is not constant.}


Space and Time: Inertial Frames (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) said:
Space and Time: Inertial Frames

First published Sat 30 Mar, 2002
A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the relative motions of bodies. A frame of reference is therefore a purely kinematical device{IOW: it omits the effects of certain variables}, for the geometrical description of motion without regard to the masses or forces involved. A dynamical account of motion leads to the idea of an “inertial frame,” or a reference frame relative to which motions have distinguished dynamical properties. For that reason an inertial frame has to be understood as a spatial reference frame together with some means of measuring time, so that uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. The laws of Newtonian dynamics provide a simple definition: an inertial frame is a reference-frame with a time-scale, relative to which the motion of a body not subject to forces is always rectilinear and uniform, accelerations are always proportional to and in the direction of applied forces, and applied forces are always met with equal and opposite reactions. It follows that, in an inertial frame, the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion. It also follows that any other frame of reference moving uniformly relative to an inertial frame is also an inertial frame. For example, in Newtonian celestial mechanics, taking the “fixed stars” as a frame of reference, we can determine an (approximately) inertial frame whose center is the center of mass of the solar system; relative to this frame, every acceleration of every planet can be accounted for (approximately) as a gravitational interaction with some other planet in accord with Newton's laws of motion.
IOW: "inertial frames" are pretend and not reality or fact.

'relative' does not equal 'actual' and is by nature a 'best guess'

As this article points out, these measurements are not actual but are only approximates(a guess) and approximates are not facts.



Gower said:
Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction[/i]. Routledge]In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a conjecture or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
IOW: while a conjecture, theory, hypothesis, conclusion may be based on scientific fact(s) are not scientific fact, but are merely one of many possible interpretations or explanations of those facts.







All emphasis in bold and comments in light blue are mine.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
and approximates are not facts.

Of course they are.

If I tell you I weigh between 350 and 450 pounds then it is a fact I do lie between those two numbers. Yet I have not stated the actual 385. My approximate range was still factual despite not having 10 digit precision.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
yet there is no true vacuum in the natural universe for us to make this observation.


The speed of light in any given medium is constant. You are comparing speeds in different mediums and suggesting that this is not true.

That you think this successfully shows that the speed of light in any medium is not constant demonstrates that you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.

The speed of light in any given medium is constant. True or False.
The speed of light in any given medium is constant. Fact or 'best guess'.
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Quote notto: Theories are based on evidence. Facts are not negotiable, theories are.{agreed}

Does water boil at 100 degrees at 1 atmosphere? Yes or No? Is that negotiable or a best guess? Yes or No?{an approximate temperature of 100 C in the lab, but in nature it is affected by other variables - all of which can not be known after the fact without direct observation of all the variables}
iapws.org said:
All liquids, at any temperature, exert a certain vapor pressure. The vapor pressure can be thought of as the degree to which the liquid molecules are escaping into the vapor phase. The vapor pressure increases with temperature, because at higher temperature the molecules are moving faster and more able to overcome the attractive intermolecular forces that tend to bind them together. Boiling occurs when the vapor pressure reaches or exceeds the surrounding pressure from the atmosphere or whatever else is in contact with the liquid.

At standard atmospheric pressure (1 atmosphere = 0.101325 MPa), water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsius. That is simply another way of saying that the vapor pressure of water at that temperature is 1 atmosphere.
BTW: a "standard atmosphere" is also factitious.





You really should just ask questions and get a clearer understanding of the terminology here before you make statements like this.

You are confusing terms and their meanings.

Name something that is accepted as scientific fact that is anything close to a 'best guess'? {Secular science says: the Earth is Millions of years old. The exact age is constantly debated by these same scientist. Scripture dates the Earth to about 6000 years. Secular science has been proven to be in error as evidence by its constant flux and continuing debate on this topic, yet scripture has never been proven to be errant in its dating. Your choice on who you believe.}
I Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
You do understand that observation of evidence and repeatability of predictions is not 'best guess', right?{see above}





What temperature did water boil at yesterday? What temperature will it boil at tomorrow?{again the effect is different based on various affects - all of which can not be know after the fact.}
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Of course they are.

If I tell you I weigh between 350 and 450 pounds then it is a fact I do lie between those two numbers. Yet I have not stated the actual 385. My approximate range was still factual despite not having 10 digit precision.
a range does not factually establish your true weight, it only factually established a range for your still unknown true weight which one could only guess.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The speed of light in any given medium is constant. You are comparing speeds in different mediums and suggesting that this is not true.

That you think this successfully shows that the speed of light in any medium is not constant demonstrates that you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.

The speed of light in any given medium is constant. True or False.
The speed of light in any given medium is constant. Fact or 'best guess'.
this presupposes a pure medium - something that does not occur in the natural. We can only say that under this specific condition in this specific environment light moved at this specific speed and without an actual observer there is no way to know any of this for a fact about a past unobserved event.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
this presupposes a pure medium - something that does not occur in the natural. We can only say that under this specific condition in this specific environment light moved at this specific speed and without an actual observer there is no way to know any of this for a fact about a past unobserved event.

:doh:

It does not propose a pure medium. It proposes a constant medium (something you are not getting or are refusing to accept)

We can assume that an observation we made yesterday can be repeated tomorrow unless there is evidence that it was not just as we can assume an observation we make today would have been the same yesterday.

You are off on some weird metaphysical slant that has no basis in reality or observed phenomena. It shows the desperation creationists need to go to in their fight with reality to accept what they find as unacceptable.

Can you provide a single example where a measurement of the speed of light in a constant medium was different yesterday than it was today? If not, what the heck are you rambling on about?

The speed of light in any given medium is constant. Unless you can provide actual evidence that this is not the case, your argument is not really a valuable one and doesn't support your use of the term 'best guess' to describe measurements.

It only shows that you refuse to accept what works and what has been demonstrated to work in making repeatable predictions.

If what you say is valid, then the predictions we make would not pan out. They do. Your idea is falsified.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
476
40
✟11,829.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
a range does not factually establish your true weight, it only factually established a range for your still unknown true weight which one could only guess.

:doh:
But the fact wasn't trying to establish true weight, just a range. It's still a fact. It's just a fact that describes a range.

GooberJIL, you clearly don't have a lot of background in scientific methodology. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. Unfortunately, you're now arguing with some pretty prominent scientists. People with doctorates. People who really, really know their stuff. Pulling this sort of nonsense on them just doesn't work, and it'll get you exposed. Then you'll not only look arrogant, you'll look like a fool for trying to pretend that you weren't.

Take my advise, stop all this arguing that you're doing, and say "I'm willing to learn a thing or two because right now I don't understand the topic." You'll suddenly have all the help in the world from us.
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, conclusions are arrived at via data. They qualify theories, validate hypotheses, reinforce suppositions and fine-tune assumptions.
IOW: most of what is passed off as scientific fact is not fact, but is only a best guess. Thank you for validating my point.
theories, hypothesis, suppositions, and assumptions are not scientific facts.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
476
40
✟11,829.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
theories, hypothesis, suppositions, and assumptions are not scientific facts.
I didn't claim that they were. Facts are facts. Conclusions are supported by facts. Conclusions have all the listed effects on other aspects of scientific methodology, like theories and hypotheses. Was I being unclear? Because it really looked like you were trying to twist what I was saying around to say something I didn't.
 
Upvote 0

GooberJIL

Active Member
Jul 19, 2007
84
2
Seattle, WA
Visit site
✟22,714.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I didn't claim that they were. Facts are facts. Conclusions are supported by facts. Conclusions have all the listed effects on other aspects of scientific methodology, like theories and hypotheses. Was I being unclear? Because it really looked like you were trying to twist what I was saying around to say something I didn't.

apology accepted.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
here is another reason why believers do not believe secular scientists. the tales just keep getting bigger and more fanciful:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_sc/dino_ancestors;_ylt=Aq9ntrVGzra9_zq_r9nrSclvieAA

There were no complete skeletons, and researchers are continuing to work at the site.
Their finds included bones from both early dinosaurs and dinosaur precursors as well as remains of crocodile ancestors, fish and amphibians, all dating between 220 million and 210 million years ago.

it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth.

one wonders if any of these people can be honest...
 
Upvote 0

KokoTheGorilla2

Active Member
Jul 4, 2007
78
5
✟22,725.00
Faith
Non-Denom
it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth

it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth.

one wonders if any of these people can be honest...

They honest about there not being complete skeletons!

How complete does a skeleton need to be?

Why is an "incomplete" skeleton not evidence?

here is another reason why believers do not believe secular scientists.

What was the first reason?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
here is another reason why believers do not believe secular scientists. the tales just keep getting bigger and more fanciful:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_sc/dino_ancestors;_ylt=Aq9ntrVGzra9_zq_r9nrSclvieAA



it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth.

one wonders if any of these people can be honest...

<staff edit>

What dishonesty do you think you are showing on the part of these scientists?

Please point it out and explain how it is dishonest and how you can claim it is dishonest by pointing out the evidence that show they are not telling a truth.

More unsupported assertions.

Where did that chalk come from?

How come you suggest that there is only one specimen of Tiktaalik when indeed there have been many?

How come you suggest that a picture is used to form conclusions when your very own source shows this is not the case?

<staff edit>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dannager
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
476
40
✟11,829.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
What dishonesty do you think you are showing on the part of these scientists?

Please point it out and explain how it is dishonest and how you can claim it is dishonest by pointing out the evidence that show they are not telling a truth.

More unsupported assertions.

Where did that chalk come from?

How come you suggest that there is only one specimen of Tiktaalik when indeed there have been many?
Truth.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.