Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

You were talking about evidence and millions of witnesses. Leading to miracles. I gave you the opportunity to use the evidence of millions. Evidence which we can verify. You said you'd look into it.

Guess you changed your mind.

Actually I was talking about staying on topic. Maybe you missed that.

We found that evidence is of central importance to science, yet what constitutes evidence is not defined.

Good to know.

I guess we can just call whatever we want evidence; as we go along with our speculations.

 

[RileyG]

Thank you for posting @HARK! . Although I admit, most science goes over my head.

 

[HARK!]

Thank you for posting @HARK! . Although I admit, most science goes over my head.

My pleasure.

I love science. It helps me to make really good guesses.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually I was talking about staying on topic. Maybe you missed that.

We found that evidence is of central importance to science, yet what constitutes evidence is not defined.

Bring some to the table to support your position. We can discuss it.

 

[Ophiolite]

How about the latest speculation over recorded history, as witnessed by over a million witnesses?

Never mind. No matter, I'd rather just stay on topic.

That was startlingly obtuse. I had no idea what it might mean till I read your exchange with @Bradskii . So indeed, how about it?

Never mind. No matter, I'd rather just stay on topic.

In a thread, originated by yourself, that apparently argues that science can prove creation, it seems very much on topic to highlight the distinctions between science and faith.

In respect of that OP, on what basis do you assert that the universe must be infinite. The last time I looked, say six or seven years ago, the experts had opinions (differing) as to what was most likely, but lacked the data to select an option. What is the basis of your claim it must be infinite? Your sole argument, in post #1, appears to be incredulity that it could not be infinite. If I am mistaken please apply your topological expertise to explain why there could be no "magic wall" to limit its extent. (A Moibus strip has only one side, but perhaps you consider that to be a twisted argument.)

 

[HARK!]

Bring some to the table to support your position. We can discuss it.

You could try reading the OP.

 

[HARK!]

it seems very much on topic to highlight the distinctions between science and faith.

How so?

In respect of that OP, on what basis do you assert that the universe must be infinite. The last time I looked, say six or seven years ago, the experts had opinions (differing) as to what was most likely, but lacked the data to select an option. What is the basis of your claim it must be infinite? Your sole argument, in post #1, appears to be incredulity that it could not be infinite. If I am mistaken please apply your topological expertise to explain why there could be no "magic wall" to limit its extent. (A Moibus strip has only one side, but perhaps you consider that to be a twisted argument.)

Maybe it's held up by a turtle?

Evidence is of central importance to science. Where is your evidence of this magic wall?

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe it's held up by a turtle?

Evidence is of central importance to science. Where is your evidence of this magic wall?

Perhaps the magic wall is held up by a turtle, or small herd of elephants. That's rather my point. Here, I'll put it in bold to emphasise its importance: No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite. You have asserted that it must be infinite (a view I would lean to myself), but that places you in direct disagreement with many experts in the field of cosmology.
To justify that assertion - which you were 100% certain of - you need to provide a serious explanation of why you have such confidence that the "magic wall" cannot exist. Cosmologists have no trouble contemplating its existence, so I'll take theri view over that of yours, until you provide a reasonable justification. An argument from incredulity does not cut it.
I've suggested a topological argument looks the most fruitful way for you to attempt this, but you may have a better idea. I'm open to anything.
(Is it bated breath or baited breath?)

You asked how my post #553 could "highlight the distinctions between science and faith". The post is a short one so I copy it here for your convenience.

If you are content to leave things as they are, if you have no desire to improve, if you are too uncomfortable to consider that you may be wrong, then you stand in the way of human progress. I'll take the self-doubt and the excitement of discovery over an unshakeable, unchanging belief system based on the writings, two or three millenia old, of a tribe of agriculturalists

I don't see any clearer way of stating my case than I did there. I think the problem may lie in my characterisation of it as "highlighting the distinctions between science and faith". Does post #553 make more sense to you if I say it "highlights my impression of the distinctions between science and faith"? If so, I can easily go back and edit accordingly so that it doesn't confuse other readers. (You will notice from the second item in my signature that I recognise that most misunderstandings are down to my writing and not the reader's reading.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

There was a recent request to address the OP. Post #4 does so adequately...

Wait where did you show that science proves creation? All I see is some rambling about thermodynamics and a clear misunderstanding of the Big Bang. How does that "prove" a being created the universe?

The "proof" offered goes downhill from there in a old thread that has been revived twice.

 

[driewerf]

Impressive credentials, don't you think?

Would you add "circle nutter" to them, as Hans did?

IF I remember well, the first crop circles were rather simple. Unusual wind or weather patterns were not to be excluded. Later crop circles were more and more elaborate so human design became the more plausible explanation. I wouldn't label the first investigators not as circle nutters. The ones that were invoking aliens, UFO's and what not: yes.

 

[HARK!]

Perhaps the magic wall is held up by a turtle, or small herd of elephants. That's rather my point. Here, I'll put it in bold to emphasise its importance: No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite. You have asserted that it must be infinite (a view I would lean to myself), but that places you in direct disagreement with many experts in the field of cosmology.
To justify that assertion - which you were 100% certain of - you need to provide a serious explanation of why you have such confidence that the "magic wall" cannot exist. Cosmologists have no trouble contemplating its existence, so I'll take theri view over that of yours, until you provide a reasonable justification. An argument from incredulity does not cut it.
I've suggested a topological argument looks the most fruitful way for you to attempt this, but you may have a better idea. I'm open to anything.
(Is it bated breath or baited breath?)

Argumentum ab auctoritate? Really?

A wall divides spaces. Even if such a wall could exist; it would only divide the space within, from the space outside of it. A wall doesn't limit space. It only divides it.

You'll need to come up with a better fantasy to explain away the existence of infinite space.

However, I think that it would be more fruitful for you to justify the speculative presumptions of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't label the first investigators not as circle nutters. The ones that were invoking aliens, UFO's and what not: yes.

I guess one way to let your guard down is to assume everything has a natural explanation, then go after those who disagree with that.

While they're busy putting down those who hold to supernatural explanations, the enemy walks right through the gauntlet unnoticed.

 

[Shemjaza]

You could try reading the OP.

You still haven't acknowledged that curvature of space-time renders your initial assumptions about how the universe works as false.

 

[Ophiolite]

Argumentum ab auctoritate? Really?

Yes. Really. I am not trying to prove anything, nor am I attempting to extract any knowledge. If I was my post would count as an argument from authority. But I'm not. Unless you refer to the knowledge I would really like to have - on what basis do you justify absolute disagreement with the experts in the field? It is a simple question which, so far you have avoided giving an meaningful answer to. But you are reluctant to answer. I'll accept that reluctance as the answer and we can move on.

A wall divides spaces. Even if such a wall could exist; it would only divide the space within, from the space outside of it. A wall doesn't limit space. It only divides it.

I lack the expertise in topology to address your confusion. You will really have to work on that yourself.

You'll need to come up with a better fantasy to explain away the existence of infinite space

Or you could do what I have done and accept that currently we lack sufficient data to form a conclusion either way.

However, I think that it would be more fruitful for you to justify the speculative presumptions of the First Law of Thermodynamics

Did you mean the Second Law? The First Law is what you mentioned to begin with. I only scanned a third of the pages, but couldn't spot it.

The Second Law, well all three Laws really, are important in the formation of igneous and metamorphic rock. Application of the Laws to such formation routinely has not, to my knowledge, thrown up significant surprises that would cause one to question the applicability of the Laws. Since that's where my interest lies in regard to the Laws I don't see anything fruitful for me to investigate there. But if you want to lay out a few pointers, to mix the metaphors, I'll bite.

 

[HARK!]

You still haven't acknowledged that curvature of space-time renders your initial assumptions about how the universe works as false.

You still haven't demonstrated this assertion.

 

[HARK!]

Yes. Really. I am not trying to prove anything, nor am I attempting to extract any knowledge. If I was my post would count as an argument from authority.

The "evidence," however we might define that, is not on your side.

Case and point:

You have asserted that it must be infinite (a view I would lean to myself), but that places you in direct disagreement with many experts in the field of cosmology.

 

[HARK!]

I lack the expertise in topology to address your confusion.

What confusion?

 

[HARK!]

Or you could do what I have done and accept that currently we lack sufficient data to form a conclusion either way.

So would you apply that same philosophy to First Law of Thermodynamics?

The infinite qualities of space are far more demonstrable.

 

[HARK!]

Did you mean the Second Law? The First Law is what you mentioned to begin with.

No, I meant what I said.

 

[Ophiolite]

@HARK! it seems to me that our perception of what is commonly called reality are so divergent that meaningful communication is impractical. Doubtless you find flaws in my style and logic. I find the same to be true of you. It is unproductive to continue.