Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[dad]

Firstly, you have no idea whatsoever what was changed to leave us with current laws. Remember it was not a change IN our laws

True. The future is the key to the past. We have some idea how the laws will be different in the future. It is so called science that has no idea. The spiritual is the missing or added element in the future and present. It is missing in the present as part of nature directly.

Your experiment merely demonstrates that the only way that a change could have happened and left no evidence is if an entirely new universe was created. If that's the case then you could potentially be right, but our fishbowl has remained the same. We haven't made any conclusions beyond it.

False. The fish in the tank were also the same old fish.

If the conditions of the fishbowl had changed (which is what we are actually discussing here), you could find signs that this had happened. You're talking about a different fishbowl.

Fish really can't find all that many signs. Not too bright. If the fish of so called science know and use and assume and believe in only the state we exist in now, they will not understand evidence of a changed world when they swim right over it.

Likely? That is only assumed. What we are really seeing is likely events that happened in the past which was subject to the same laws as the present.

Actually, I think that is not known after all. If the nature of deep space were not the same, then all the earth based models would be nonsense. Did you look at the link I gave?
MPIfR PR 06/2008(2)

That is where the evidence points - if something caused the universe to change then you're going to have to demonstrate it.

Well, I actually suspect that it did not change except for the earth zone. So all that needs change is the belief based filter that you look at it with.

 

[SithDoughnut]

True. The future is the key to the past. We have some idea how the laws will be different in the future. It is so called science that has no idea. The spiritual is the missing or added element in the future and present. It is missing in the present as part of nature directly.

So science needs proof and you can just declare "fact" and expect it to be so, right?

False. The fish in the tank were also the same old fish.

You said new fish, and you described the final part of your analogy from one of the new fish, who had not seen the old tank.

Fish really can't find all that many signs. Not too bright. If the fish of so called science know and use and assume and believe in only the state we exist in now, they will not understand evidence of a changed world when they swim right over it.

Fish don't run science. If you're going to use that analogy, you're going to need to be both consistent and willing to adapt the concept to actually fit what you're describing. In this case, the fish would have to have human levels of intelligence.

Actually, I think that is not known after all. If the nature of deep space were not the same, then all the earth based models would be nonsense. Did you look at the link I gave?
MPIfR PR 06/2008(2)

You mean the link where they found that the laws of the universe were exactly the same where they looked? There have been studies that suggest that the laws of the universe could potentially be different, but until we find such a case, there's no reason to assume they exist. You only do because it allows you to cling to your beliefs.

Well, I actually suspect that it did not change except for the earth zone. So all that needs change is the belief based filter that you look at it with.

So you have no evidence or logical reason to conclude that the laws of physics have changed.

 

[dad]

So science needs proof and you can just declare "fact" and expect it to be so, right?

So now science can cluck out whatever it wants without evidence? Wow...run spot run.

You said new fish, and you described the final part of your analogy from one of the new fish, who had not seen the old tank.

Well, there were both. Neither really were well equipped. Just like man. Science today, or science 100 years ago.

Fish don't run science. If you're going to use that analogy, you're going to need to be both consistent and willing to adapt the concept to actually fit what you're describing. In this case, the fish would have to have human levels of intelligence.

No, only if humans made the world they lived in. The fish never made their own tank. Nor the room it was in, or world it was on.

You mean the link where they found that the laws of the universe were exactly the same where they looked?

Yes. The link where that claim was made.

There have been studies that suggest that the laws of the universe could potentially be different, but until we find such a case, there's no reason to assume they exist. You only do because it allows you to cling to your beliefs.

So you don't know. OK.

So you have no evidence or logical reason to conclude that the laws of physics have changed.

No. In fact I have reasons to think they did not. At least not since they came to exist after our whole nature changed.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So now science can cluck out whatever it wants without evidence? Wow...run spot run.

It can't, and it hasn't. You presented the evidence yourself.

Well, there were both. Neither really were well equipped. Just like man. Science today, or science 100 years ago.

Except that some of the fish were present to see the old tank, and would remember it (they don't actually have 3 second memories).

No, only if humans made the world they lived in. The fish never made their own tank. Nor the room it was in, or world it was on.

So we can't know anything about things we haven't made?

Yes. The link where that claim was made.

Exactly what were you trying to demonstrate with a link that is evidence for the other side?

So you don't know. OK.

No, I don't. However, I do know that there is no reason to assume that you are right, and that you haven't given any reason other than that the other argument might be wrong.

No. In fact I have reasons to think they did not. At least not since they came to exist after our whole nature changed.

What reasons would those be?

 

[dad]

It can't, and it hasn't. You presented the evidence yourself.

Ok. So science is seriously sidelined.

Except that some of the fish were present to see the old tank, and would remember it (they don't actually have 3 second memories).

And...so? The tank is now in another room in another state.

So we can't know anything about things we haven't made?

Well, you can know what direction the light comes from in your new room and a few things. How light in the fishbowl looks to you..

Exactly what were you trying to demonstrate with a link that is evidence for the other side?

That it is easy to destroy their whole position.

No, I don't. However, I do know that there is no reason to assume that you are right, and that you haven't given any reason other than that the other argument might be wrong.

By the other argument I take it you mean the same state past you can't prove. You will have to do better than that.

What reasons would those be?

Those reasons are that I have debated on other forums where over educated people made convincing arguments on the issue of our light or laws changing.

 

[Tiberius]

No. I am just a little man. But I do have a little brain. And it is capable of looking at claims and their basis..to some extent. The standard model is hairy fairy tales.

And man is fallible.

And what qualifies you to pass judgements on the claims made by people who have not only studied these things their whole lives, but also DEPEND on being able to use these things to make accurate predictions? How could something that is wrong lead to accurate information?

 

[dad]

And man is fallible.

Especially when he uses mere assumptions.

And what qualifies you to pass judgements on the claims made by people who have not only studied these things their whole lives, but also DEPEND on being able to use these things to make accurate predictions? How could something that is wrong lead to accurate information?

It leads to nothing...ever. Give one example of what you thought it led to??

 

[Tiberius]

Especially when he uses mere assumptions.

Which is why science has ways to test what it discovers.

It leads to nothing...ever. Give one example of what you thought it led to??

Discovery of oil fields based on geology. GPS based on theory of Relativity.

 

[dad]

Which is why science has ways to test what it discovers.

It has neither discoved a present state past, nor tested one!

Discovery of oil fields based on geology. GPS based on theory of Relativity.

Relativity near earth is fine..irrelevant. Oil is found by patterns in layers etc. Nothing at all to do with same state pasts.

 

[Tiberius]

It has neither discoved a present state past, nor tested one!

yes it has. I've explained to you many times that radio dating would not produce sensible results if the past state was any different to what it is now. You have constantly failed to explain why it would.

Your ignorance of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Relativity near earth is fine..irrelevant. Oil is found by patterns in layers etc. Nothing at all to do with same state pasts.

You asked for something that science has provided based on poredictions. I answered.

Oil is found by predictions made by assuming a same state past. And by jove it works! How could that possibly be if it is wrong? Why does a mistake provide the correct answer? Shouldn't it lead us to nothing instead of exactly what it predicts? And why does it lead us to the correct answer time and time again? Why? OH WHY???

 

[dad]

yes it has. I've explained to you many times that radio dating would not produce sensible results if the past state was any different to what it is now. You have constantly failed to explain why it would.

If we started out with lots of daughter material when this state started, you have no results.

Your ignorance of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Your ignorance of claiming something doesn't exist, the same state past doesn't mean it did exist.

Oil is found by predictions made by assuming a same state past.

False! That has nothing at all to do with it. That is merely a belief that the godless have regarding the layers. The actual finds come by the patterns of deposits, NOT imaginary times.

 

[Tiberius]

If we started out with lots of daughter material when this state started, you have no results.

And science has mechanisms in place to make sure that such confusion is not an issue. They can tell for certain due to a solid understanding of how radio active decay works.

I'm sorry I'm not qualified to explain it in the detail you seem to want, as I am not a geophysicist. But I'm sure you could find an explanation of it on the net, if you really wanted to learn about it.

I won't do the work of finding one for you, because I suspect you don't want to learn about it, and I'm not inclined to waste my time.

Your ignorance of claiming something doesn't exist, the same state past doesn't mean it did exist.

We have no reason to think there was a different state in the past.

False! That has nothing at all to do with it. That is merely a belief that the godless have regarding the layers. The actual finds come by the patterns of deposits, NOT imaginary times.

Despite the fact that, as a fossil fuel, oil deposits REQUIRE an ancient world that has always operated the way we see it operating now?

 

[dad]

And science has mechanisms in place to make sure that such confusion is not an issue.They can tell for certain due to a solid understanding of how radio active decay works.

And I would agree...it now works that way. Irrelevant. Stop telling stories about the daughters and trying to piggyback that onto science! That is gossip. hearsay. Speculation.

I'm sorry I'm not qualified to explain it in the detail you seem to want, as I am not a geophysicist. But I'm sure you could find an explanation of it on the net, if you really wanted to learn about it.

I already have their number, and they are busted big time. No one on earth can help you. Really.

I won't do the work of finding one for you, because I suspect you don't want to learn about it, and I'm not inclined to waste my time.

You can't. If you did you might find out. Why kid yourself?

We have no reason to think there was a different state in the past.

All reasons lead that way. Observers, history, bible.

Despite the fact that, as a fossil fuel, oil deposits REQUIRE an ancient world that has always operated the way we see it operating now?

I won't argue that, although many in science now claim that oil is a natural product of the planet, and not from fossils.

If life multiplied fast, then we would have plant and animals life galore to fossilize. If all life died on the planet (save some sea life and Noah & co) that is also a lot of material. So I have no problem whatsoever.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Reading through this post Dad reminds me of the "Thick People" sketch in Jam by Chris Morris. Look it up.

It's about a company that offers thick people for jobs - such as arguments, because they're very good at arguments, they're too thick to realise they've lost.

 

[Tiberius]

And I would agree...it now works that way. Irrelevant. Stop telling stories about the daughters and trying to piggyback that onto science! That is gossip. hearsay. Speculation.

If the technique is so easily falsified, why don't you show me a piece of evidence that falsifies it, instead of your tired old rhetoric "You can't prove I'm wrong!"

I already have their number, and they are busted big time. No one on earth can help you. Really.

You remind me of the characters in horror movies who say, "We finally escaped from the monster." because they only think that they've killed it.

You can't. If you did you might find out. Why kid yourself?

I've tried to do it before, and you just ignore me. Why should I spend time working on something you won't even read?

All reasons lead that way. Observers, history, bible.

Name a specific observer whose eyewitness testimony indicates that the universe was in a different state in the past? Name one piece of verifiable evidence that shows that the universe was in a different state in the past. Name one testably true part of the Bible which shows that the universe was in a different state in the past.

I won't argue that, although many in science now claim that oil is a natural product of the planet, and not from fossils.

Show me one valid scientist in a relevant field who claims this. So no computer scientists.

 

[dad]

Reading through this post Dad reminds me of the "Thick People" sketch in Jam by Chris Morris. Look it up.

It's about a company that offers thick people for jobs - such as arguments, because they're very good at arguments, they're too thick to realise they've lost.

You thick enough to contribute same state past proof?

 

[dad]

If the technique is so easily falsified, why don't you show me a piece of evidence that falsifies it, instead of your tired old rhetoric "You can't prove I'm wrong!"

That has what to do with you proving that a same state past, hence daughter material being produced..?? Once you do that we can see if it is falsified...etc.

You remind me of the characters in horror movies who say, "We finally escaped from the monster." because they only think that they've killed it.

Bring on your monster anytime....I eat them for breakfast.

I've tried to do it before, and you just ignore me. Why should I spend time working on something you won't even read?

Then you have nothing, and the same state past remains a poor fable.

Name a specific observer whose eyewitness testimony indicates that the universe was in a different state in the past?

God.

Name one piece of verifiable evidence that shows that the universe was in a different state in the past.

You can't verify anything out of the present fishbowl, why come off pretending you can?? Science sits on a present state in the past foundation. Obviously science needs to name one piece of verifiable evidence that shows that the universe was in a this present state in the past. You failed to do that.

Name one testably true part of the Bible which shows that the universe was in a different state in the past.

Name one part you can test...? The tests for truth have zero to do with same state so called science.

Show me one valid scientist in a relevant field who claims this. So no computer scientists.

Show me one that can prove the required same state past, or who cares what they say or think??

 

[Tiberius]

That has what to do with you proving that a same state past, hence daughter material being produced..?? Once you do that we can see if it is falsified...etc.

You are the one making the claim, dad. Ever hear of a little thing called "burden of proof"? it's sitting squarely on your shoulders, not mine.

Bring on your monster anytime....I eat them for breakfast.

the science monster has eaten you up and spat you out. You just don't realise it because you're looking at your own script.

Then you have nothing, and the same state past remains a poor fable.

I have plenty. The fact you refuse to look at it does not mean it doesn't exist.

God.

Invalid.

You can't verify anything out of the present fishbowl, why come off pretending you can?? Science sits on a present state in the past foundation. Obviously science needs to name one piece of verifiable evidence that shows that the universe was in a this present state in the past. You failed to do that.

I have done it many times. Like I said before, you cover your eyes so you can pretend it doesn't exist, much like a scared child afraid of the dark.

Name one part you can test...? The tests for truth have zero to do with same state so called science.

Then you are completely ignorant of how science works and you are not qualified in any way whatsoever to call it into question.

Show me one that can prove the required same state past, or who cares what they say or think??

Like I've said before, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[VehementiDominus]

You thick enough to contribute same state past proof?

I don't need to.

Things stay the same unless something changes them, until you can provide evidence of the thing that caused the change, then no one has any reason to take you seriously.

We have absolutely no reason to believe that the past was any different, and that will continue until you stop talking out of your rectum and provide viable evidence to support the ridiculous claim that it was.

 

[sandwiches]

So, when you look out in space, remember that. You thought gravity caused lensing effect??? Think again. You thought that ammonia out there had to be in our state, or light or anything?? Think again. You thought space was the same? Ha.

How is it that you know these claims are wrong?