Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[dlamberth]

.. and you might well have access to that luxury .. but intellectual honesty in scientific research, demands confrontation of objective truths.
(Where what I mean by 'objective truths' there, are the results from the last best tested theories).

Crises happen when objective truths confront beliefs such as the beliefs posited in Thomism.

I know you don't understand, I get it. But than there are those who get it do go where they are able find a place where science is compatible with their religion. I think it's basically that there's no way your able to take their reality of God out of what they "experience" in life. At least I find that's true for myself anyway. I suspect that's true for Oberg as well. To understand people like Oberg, a person has to go beneath the outer form, which is where you seem to be stuck at and look beneath the hood at what those like Aquinas are actually "experiencing". As you can see, that word "experiencing" is important to me in this discussion. Intellectual honesty in science research is one side of the coin. The other side is actual human personal "experience" But than that raises the question: What does it mean to be a more human, Human Being? Can science alone answer that question? I don't think so.

 

[dlamberth]

I've partaken in some flying spirits in my time.

Ya...being a child of the 60'/70's, I've flown a time or two.

Ok so there's another human mind model: a spiritual experience mind model.
I can distinguish experience models differently from objective (scientific) models.

Sure .. I don't think I've ever had any major issues with things you've posted (that I've read). I think we're pretty closely aligned in quite a few aspects .. but our preferences diverge somewhat, I think, when it comes to how you position 'the Earth' in your thinking ..
(I hope you continue to keep the objective parts distinguished from your deep feelings there).

I have no problem keeping my objective reality separate from my spiritual reality in this forum. Woo-woo ideas about the Earth just do not align with what the Earth is actually showing us.

 

[dlamberth]

I do understand that is why you originally posted the video, but the conversation regarding the video has moved from it being some sort of window to a view of yours (as you originally intended, but I never quite got, and no longer hold any interest in) to the video and its presenter.

I know I didn't follow up as I should have, but that's why in a post 893 I started out with: "Talk about attacking the messenger and not the message".

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no problem keeping my objective reality separate from my spiritual reality in this forum.

Nor do I.

Here are my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Let's see yours, please.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wasn't intending to refer to asking about another person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the workplace on work time. Yeah, we all know how that goes. Rather, I was thinking more along the lines of a casual chat at lunch, but I guess people's political sensitivities are too heightened these days for casual talk. What a shame.

I think you've set your sensitivity meter too high. No one said you couldn't discuss such thing at lunch, but frankly we've got more interesting things to discuss. Most people tend to think of personal religious choices as private rather than public matters. It comes up, but usually in things like "I've got to go to my niece's baptism this weekend." and similar, rather accidentally. It just mostly isn't relevant to even our completely non-scientific conversations. (I know exactly who to ask for a World Cup preview and it has to pretty close to endure the whole recitation.)

Well, you apparently have encountered more YEC's in a professional setting than I have, then.

Personally, I don't know if I have, but I've gotten dangerously close to finding out once or twice. (If it looks like they might reveal they are YECers, I try to back off and dodge the subject lest I lose respect for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally, I don't know if I have, but I've gotten dangerously close to finding out once or twice. (If it looks like they might reveal they are YECers, I try to back off and dodge the subject lest I lose respect for them.)

What if they wear a cross around their neck? or carry change in their pockets with IN GOD WE TRUST on them?

 

[Mountainmike]

Congratulations this attempt at obfuscation by hiding your profound ignorance on radiometric dating by evoking Einstein, Hawking, Kant, Aristotle and the Philosophy of Science has backfired.

Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. In the case of short lived isotopes where half life can be directly measured in the laboratory, it doesn't matter how many times the test is performed, the decay rate will remain constant. This is inductive reasoning at work.

For radiometric decay such as U-Pb where direct measurement of half life is not possible, deductive reasoning is used where the decay rate remains constant irrespective of the magnitude of half life. This is confirmed by cross checking with other dating methods.

Your 'methodology' of using incredulity and scepticism not only fails science as it is not a working hypothesis, but also the Philosophy of Science as it doesn't provide inductive or deductive reasoning either.

You use scientism and realism not science.

Have you never asked the question what it is possible to know?

Read hawkings book. Or many others. . Start learning something.

You cannot extrapolate from a model based on a few years results and then have certainty over 4.5 billion years!

You deal with a model not a reality.

Even thunderstorms can produce radiations.
Can you state with certainy everything that happened in that period that my have affected radiation models?

My CORRECT assertion as a PROFESSIONAL math modeller is the accuracy you ascribe to your model needs to be taken with a pinch.

Considering the entities in your model don’t actually exist outside the model , and certainly not till observed
, you live in a world of schoolboy scientism not science. It’s fascinating to me how you think you know better than so many pillars of the scientific community. do you believe you know better than hawking.

 

[SelfSim]

You use scientism and realism not science.

Have you never asked the question what it is possible to know?

Read hawkings book. Or many others. . Start learning something.

You cannot extrapolate from a model based on a few years results and then have certainty over 4.5 billion years!

You deal with a model not a reality.

Even thunderstorms can produce radiations.
Can you state with certainy everything that happened in that period that my have affected radiation models?

My CORRECT assertion as a PROFESSIONAL math modeller is the accuracy you ascribe to your model needs to be taken with a pinch.

Considering the entities in your model don’t actually exist outside the model , and certainly not till observed
, you live in a world of schoolboy scientism not science. It’s fascinating to me how you think you know better than so many pillars of the scientific community. do you believe you know better than hawking.

If you'd understood Hawking's books, you would understand that reality IS a model.
You therefore obviously didn't understand Hawking's books ..
All of what you say is therefore, hilarious.

 

[sjastro]

You use scientism and realism not science.

Have you never asked the question what it is possible to know?

Read hawkings book. Or many others. . Start learning something.

You cannot extrapolate from a model based on a few years results and then have certainty over 4.5 billion years!

You deal with a model not a reality.

Even thunderstorms can produce radiations.
Can you state with certainy everything that happened in that period that my have affected radiation models?

My CORRECT assertion as a PROFESSIONAL math modeller is the accuracy you ascribe to your model needs to be taken with a pinch.

Considering the entities in your model don’t actually exist outside the model , and certainly not till observed
, you live in a world of schoolboy scientism not science. It’s fascinating to me how you think you know better than so many pillars of the scientific community. do you believe you know better than hawking.

Your response confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time, you are no scientist nor a towering intellect.
I asked you a simple question if alpha and beta decay rates changed in the past and even provided a template on how to frame the answer using electron capture decay which can change with time.

In case you didn’t comprehend it first time round, the hypothesis is based on changing the electron density in the K and L shells which can impact on the decay rate through ionization or under extreme conditions where electron degenerate matter is formed. The supporting evidence are the different electron capture decay rates of the Be atom in the metal when compared to the compound BeO. BeO is composed of Be²⁺ and O²⁻ ions where the two L valence electrons in Be are occupied by the O atom and the remaining K electrons are drawn closer to the nucleus since the Be atom has a net positive charge increasing their density and affecting the decay rate.

By comparison did you provide a hypothesis why alpha and beta decay rates could change, no you didn’t, did you provide any supportive evidence, no you didn’t. Instead your argument is based on opinionated nonsense and in true narcissistic behaviour of not having the backbone of admitting your ignorance is to turn the answer into personal attacks, obfuscation and logical fallacies.

Since you are incapable of providing a reasoned explanation, the alternative is to ask the question on the consequences of having variable alpha and beta decay rates in the past.
α decay involves the emission of ⁴He (2 protons + 2 neutrons) from a parent nucleus and its probability depends on quantum tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier which is the electrostatic repulsion between the α particle and the nucleus.
This directly impacts on the fine structure constant α which governs electromagnetic interactions and the Coulomb barrier.
β decay involves the transformation of a neutron into a proton (β⁻ decay) or a proton into a neutron (β⁺ decay), emitting electrons/positrons and neutrinos and depends on the weak interaction strength governed by the Fermi coupling constant Gf.

If alpha and beta decay did change in the past then α and Gf are no longer fundamental constants. This not only leads to problems ranging from explaining isotopic ratios to nucleosynthesis but also the fine tuning argument which science struggles to explain without invoking the anthropic principle. This is even more problematic to ID and creationism because fine tuning is considered evidence for a creator where the fundamental constants do not change.

This is how you answer the question using science instead of your brand of nonsense.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a spectrum of the quasar 3C-273 I took using very modest equipment (10" BRC telescope and a grating filter).

Calculating the cosmological redshift z of the hydrogen lines α, β and γ.

• Hα: Measured 760 nm vs. rest frame 656 nm → z=760−656/656 ≈ 0.158.
• Hβ: Measured 563 nm vs. rest frame 486 nm → z=563−486/486 ≈ 0.158.
• Hγ: Measured 503 nm vs. rest frame 434 nm → z=503−434/434 ≈ 0.159.

This is in agreement with professional astronomers result of z = 0.158.

The shift in spectral lines is purely due to cosmological redshift, any change to the fine structure constant α would have resulted in anomalous shifts. Since 3C-273 is around 2.5 billion light years distant we can conclude α has not changed in this time frame.

@Mountainmike why should scientists disregard evidence like this and still entertain the idea physical constants like α could vary which does impact on decay rates?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You use scientism and realism not science.

Have you never asked the question what it is possible to know?

Read hawkings book. Or many others. . Start learning something.

A pop-sci book? Seriously?

You cannot extrapolate from a model based on a few years results and then have certainty over 4.5 billion years!

Which "4.5 Gyr" problem are you having:

1. How can you measure the decay of an isotope with a billion-year+ decay rate?
2. How do we know the constants didn't change?
3. Were you there?

This thread has been dormant for a few weeks.

You deal with a model not a reality.

Even thunderstorms can produce radiations.

Radiations? Is that even grammatical?

Can you state with certainy everything that happened in that period that my have affected radiation models?

So it is just the "were you there?" argument. Sigh.

My CORRECT assertion as a PROFESSIONAL math modeller is the accuracy you ascribe to your model needs to be taken with a pinch.

What you seem to be lacking is even a basic understanding of the physics involved. Nothing have done in this thread disabuses us of this assessment.

Considering the entities in your model don’t actually exist outside the model , and certainly not till observed
, you live in a world of schoolboy scientism not science. It’s fascinating to me how you think you know better than so many pillars of the scientific community. do you believe you know better than hawking.

Can you even specify those "entities" for us? Given the statements you've made here, I don't have any confidence in your understanding of them. It is quite difficult to take the "criticism" (more like "sniping") of a model from source that shows no understanding of the content.

 

[River Jordan]

It's weird to see @Mountainmike claim to be a mathematical modeler while also making an argument that's essentially an appeal to absolute certainty.

The modelers I work with (mostly population and behavioral models) would laugh at and be baffled by the suggestion that models should be 100% absolutely certain to be accurate. If we could do that, we wouldn't need a "model", we would just describe the phenomenon with 100% accuracy.

 

[BCP1928]

You use scientism and realism not science.

Have you never asked the question what it is possible to know?

Read hawkings book. Or many others. . Start learning something.

You cannot extrapolate from a model based on a few years results and then have certainty over 4.5 billion years!

You deal with a model not a reality.

Even thunderstorms can produce radiations.
Can you state with certainy everything that happened in that period that my have affected radiation models?

My CORRECT assertion as a PROFESSIONAL math modeller is the accuracy you ascribe to your model needs to be taken with a pinch.

Considering the entities in your model don’t actually exist outside the model , and certainly not till observed
, you live in a world of schoolboy scientism not science. It’s fascinating to me how you think you know better than so many pillars of the scientific community. do you believe you know better than hawking.

Do you have a better way of determining the age of the Earth?

 

[sjastro]

Do you have a better way of determining the age of the Earth?

If he has it is a military secret as he constantly reminds me being the PROFESSIONAL math modeller extraordinaire, he frequently finds problems in mainstream science that must not fall into the wrong hands.

 

[SelfSim]

If he has it is a military secret as he constantly reminds me being the PROFESSIONAL math modeller extraordinaire, he frequently finds problems in mainstream science that must not fall into the wrong hands.

Ahh .. you forgot the 'Confidentiality' exclusion principle for discoveries that are deemed to be only 'In-confidence'.
Those discoveries can still be published in books which nobody can be bothered paying for, which then ensures they effectively remain confidential, yet still profitable for the authors .. but not profitable for the book publishers. Its brilliant, I tell ya!

 

[Mountainmike]

A pop-sci book? Seriously?

Which "4.5 Gyr" problem are you having:

1. How can you measure the decay of an isotope with a billion-year+ decay rate?
2. How do we know the constants didn't change?
3. Were you there?

This thread has been dormant for a few weeks.


Radiations? Is that even grammatical?

So it is just the "were you there?" argument. Sigh.

What you seem to be lacking is even a basic understanding of the physics involved. Nothing have done in this thread disabuses us of this assessment.

Can you even specify those "entities" for us? Given the statements you've made here, I don't have any confidence in your understanding of them. It is quite difficult to take the "criticism" (more like "sniping") of a model from source that shows no understanding of the content.

Hans.
As I said I have been abroad. I answered a post I saw in my notifications.

II find it sad you have lost what must have been an enquiring mind once.

Hawkings book is significant because it presents his conclusions at the end of a life in science assuming a fundamental theory of everything.

He ends in the inevitable place.

That science is only a model, and that the only realism is model dependent. The philosophers of old , like kant, indeed those at forefront of the paradoxes of quantum reality , starting with Schrödinger himself, could have told him that ( and the role of a conscious observer. ) Till then hawking was trapped by the false assumption, often repeated here , that the physical model was a reality. By the end he accepted realism didn’t fit observations.

im guessing you must be aware of that the speed of light is not always measured as constant showing statistically significant but small variation, and may not be the constant generally assumed.
It’s sad that they “ solved it “ ( aka swept under carpet) by redefining speed and letting distance vary in standards
making research harder.

Now research is Confirming that free space modelled as containing virtual or transitory particles certainly does cause variations. If the speed of light is not constant how can you rely on anything else being invariant over billions of years?

I take it all with a great deal of interest Tempered by scepticism, it is after all only the latest version of an ever changing model,a model that gets stranger the longer you look at it. There was a time that Newton supporters ridiculed the idea of light modelled as waves And ridiculed all who dared suggest it.

AllI i have said is the extrapolation of age of earth over such a long time, from such short observation window has many potential sources of error.
The stated accuracy is tight. So it remains to be seen.

How is that even controversial?

I spent part of a career modelling , where errors could kill. It pays to be wary. Also to find the holes in enemy assumptions
There are so many chestnuts reeled out. Take Projectile motion is not a parabola!!

But philosophical issues are fascinating.
Take a generic model from a time series with n points of data.
Is using n poles, n eigdnvalues , n polynomial, whatever, more accurate or just more precise a model
Than lesser order?
You can write books on the answer to that.

Just because error bands are 1% reflects precision not accuracy, and so it is with age of earth.

 

[SelfSim]

Hans.
As I said I have been abroad. I answered a post I saw in my notifications.

II find it sad you have lost what must have been an enquiring mind once.

Hawkings book is significant because it presents his conclusions at the end of a life in science assuming a fundamental theory of everything.
He ends in the inevitable place.
That science is only a model, and the only realism is model dependent. The philosophers of old , like kant, indeed those at forefront of the paradoxes of quantum reality starting with Schrödinger could have told him that. He was trapped by the false assumption often repeated here that the physical model was a reality.

Nice try .. but the false assumption you claim there, relies solely on your belief that 'a Truth' exists .. which is yet another model .. which happens to be an untestable one, whereas science's models of reality have been extensively tested.

im guessing you must be aware of the small but statistically significant

.. an incomplete statement .. (great stuff).

Even the speed of light is not measured as constant showing statistically significant but small variation, and may not be the constant generally assumed. It’s sad that they “ solved it “ ( aka swept under carpet) by redefining speed and letting distance vary in standards . Now research is Confirming that free space containing virtual or transitory particles certainly does cause variations. If the speed of light is not constant how can you rely on anything else being invariant over billions of years?

I take it all with a great deal of interest Tempered by scepticism, it is after all only the latest version of an ever changing model, that gets stranger the longer you look at it. There was a time that Newton supporters ridiculed the idea of light modelled as waves And all who dared suggest it.

The only scepticism you offer is drawn from your above described belief in the existence of 'a Truth' .. which is not testable ..
So much for the reputation you pride yourself on, as being a scientist of significant stature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans.
As I said I have been abroad. I answered a post I saw in my notifications.

II find it sad you have lost what must have been an enquiring mind once.

Your condescension is noted and not needed.

Hawkings book is significant because it presents his conclusions at the end of a life in science assuming a fundamental theory of everything.

"End of a life in science"? in a 1988 pop sci book?

He ends in the inevitable place.

That science is only a model, and that the only realism is model dependent. The philosophers of old , like kant, indeed those at forefront of the paradoxes of quantum reality , starting with Schrödinger himself, could have told him that ( and the role of a conscious observer. ) Till then hawking was trapped by the false assumption, often repeated here , that the physical model was a reality. By the end he accepted realism didn’t fit observations.

The measurement of the age of the Earth is not about the nature of quantum reality or the role of the observer in QM.

im guessing you must be aware of that the speed of light is not always measured as constant showing statistically significant but small variation, and may not be the constant generally assumed.

Are you talking about things like this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3987

It’s sad that they “ solved it “ ( aka swept under carpet) by redefining speed and letting distance vary in standards
making research harder.

Oh, good grief. If you go out to measure "the speed of light" and its fixed relative to the definition of units, then you are actually measuring some other property. You just have to work through what it is. Also the methods for measuring the changes in c over cosmic time measure relative changes regardless of the absolute definitions (and whether it should be absolute). It's not a "cover up". Your conspiratorial thinking is not welcome or valid.

Now research is Confirming that free space modelled as containing virtual or transitory particles certainly does cause variations. If the speed of light is not constant how can you rely on anything else being invariant over billions of years?

Oh, so it is about measurements like the one I linked. That has nothing to do with whether "c" is a valid constant for all of the places it is use. It is just a reminder that actual photons propagate through "vacuums" that have virtual stuff in them. It has no impact on any place "c" appears in an equation other than photon propagation.

I take it all with a great deal of interest Tempered by scepticism, it is after all only the latest version of an ever changing model,a model that gets stranger the longer you look at it. There was a time that Newton supporters ridiculed the idea of light modelled as waves And ridiculed all who dared suggest it.

I don't see any skepticism here, only a false or pseudo-skepticism.

AllI i have said is the extrapolation of age of earth over such a long time, from such short observation window has many potential sources of error.

The "extrapolation" is only in the (measurable) stability of the physical constants as we have tried to show you.

The stated accuracy is tight. So it remains to be seen.

It really doesn't. The measured age and precision have not been controversial outside creationist circles in over a half century.

How is that even controversial?

The measurement and precision aren't, but your pseudo-skepticism is.

I spent part of a career modelling , where errors could kill. It pays to be wary. Also to find the holes in enemy assumptions
There are so many chestnuts reeled out. Take Projectile motion is not a parabola!!

I suggest experimental ballistics of vertically launched 155-mm shells. Leave your login credentials with your solicitor so that we may get a final report.

But philosophical issues are fascinating.

There really aren't any here. It is a basic measurement of rocks and minerals with radiometric dating, not a question about the meaning of life.

Take a generic model from a time series with n points of data.
Is using n poles, n eigdnvalues , n polynomial, whatever, more accurate or just more precise a model
Than lesser order?
You can write books on the answer to that.

THat you write about the measurement data of mineral ages as a times series model only illustrates the combination of your ignorance of the science behind it and the obstinance in your refusal to learn anything about it from the explanations that have been given to you repeatedly on this thread.

Just because error bands are 1% reflects precision not accuracy, and so it is with age of earth.

Sigh.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you have a better way of determining the age of the Earth?

The pseudo-skeptic never has an alternative, only uninformed needling.

 

[awstar]

The pseudo-skeptic never has an alternative, only uninformed needling.

here's an alternative based on science and Bible:

… biblical chronology falls into place, give or take 100 years: the flood began in 3290 B.C. The creation was in 5532 B.C, 6 and the Earth is 7,500 ± 100 years old.

reference:

In the Beginning Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood; 9th edition

Walt Brown, Ph.D.

FAQ: When Was the Flood, the Exodus, and Creation?

page 484-486

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - When Was the Flood, the Exodus, and Creation?

www.creationscience.com