cDK Theory

[Loudmouth]

Hmm. How about the subject of fat and cholesterol and health?

Researchers noted a correlation between the amount of fat in people's diets and the amount of obesity. So then in the 70's there was talk about decreasing the amount of fats/oils in the diet, using margarine instead of butter. But then later on they discovered that there was 'good fat' and 'bad fat' and they couldn't figure out how margarine stayed solid at room-temperature and maybe margarine wasn't so good for you.

People with high cholesterol are told to reduce the intake of high-cholesterol foods, but is everyone able to control cholesterol by diet alone or aren't medicines most effective?

There's a difference between correlation and causation. We can look at correlations and do various studies in various ways, and we can set up controlled lab environments to isolate variables and identify causes in various other ways, but the one sort of study is very different from the other, and identifying a correlation isn't considered proof of causation. It may be that high fat diets are a cause of people becoming fat (at least high 'bad fat' diets), and it may also be that high-cholesterol diets are a cause of people having high cholesterol, but the correlative studies do not establish causation.

So how should we approach this question? Should we throw up our hands because it is too hard to understand? Should we invent a cause, like fat fairies, and refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts the invented cause? Or should we apply the scientific method to find the answer?

 

[driewerf]

Doveaman,
I need to remind you of this post:

In this one you make 4 statements, each with very far reaching consequences in different sciences (if they turn out true). So you 'll have to substantiate them.
1) how do you know the age of the Universe? (6 - 12000 years)?
2) How do you know the light was much faster? What speed did it have? And how do you know that speed?
3) How do you know light slowed down? What caused this slowing down? Do you have measured values of this slowing down?
4) how does light slows down with age? What age? The age of the Universe, of the age of the light - if I switch a light on, is this then "young, rapid light"?

These are questions that flow directly from you 4 claims. You thought it fit to answer with this:


That answers non of mine question. On the contrary. The author of your text speaks of something completely else: redshift. (He is also writing a lot of nonsense, but let us stay on topic.) For your information: speed of light and wavelength are two different things. So, would you be so kind to answer the questions above.
One in a time will do.

Some questions that beg to be answered by Doveaman.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some questions that beg to be answered by Doveaman.

I'm not Dove, but I'd love to take a crack at these, if you don't mind:

1) how do you know the age of the Universe? (6 - 12000 years)?
2) How do you know the light was much faster? What speed did it have? And how do you know that speed?
3) How do you know light slowed down? What caused this slowing down? Do you have measured values of this slowing down?
4) how does light slows down with age? What age? The age of the Universe, of the age of the light - if I switch a light on, is this then "young, rapid light"?

1. The Bible existentially dates this universe at just over 6000 years.

2. a) It only makes sense that the light would be faster, since light slows down as it travels through a medium, and there was no medium as yet when the light was created, hence the light would travel unimpeded from 3rd Heaven to Earth.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note here -- no medium (space) in between:

• Heaven ↔ Earth

2. b) As I have stated before: it traveled at the speed of God's will.

2. c) Because I know that when God speaks, reality listens.

3. a) Because science says it does, and I believe 95% of what science tells me.

3. b) The creation of 2nd heaven -- (outer space).

3. c) No

4. Age would slow anything down; and if light is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I assume it would slow down as well. However, it slowed down anyway, as it now travels through a medium that didn't exist until the 2nd day of creation.

 

[No Time]

I'm not Dove, but I'd love to take a crack at these, if you don't mind:

1. The Bible existentially dates this universe at just over 6000 years.

2. a) It only makes sense that the light would be faster, since light slows down as it travels through a medium, and there was no medium as yet when the light was created, hence the light would travel unimpeded from 3rd Heaven to Earth.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note here -- no medium (space) in between:

• Heaven ↔ Earth

2. b) As I have stated before: it traveled at the speed of God's will.

2. c) Because I know that when God speaks, reality listens.

3. a) Because science says it does, and I believe 95% of what science tells me.

3. b) The creation of 2nd heaven -- (outer space).

3. c) No

4. Age would slow anything down; and if light is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I assume it would slow down as well. However, it slowed down anyway, as it now travels through a medium that didn't exist until the 2nd day of creation.

This is what would be taught in a creationists science class, how to live in a dream world.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what would be taught in a creationists science class, how to live in a dream world.

Thanks to inquiring minds like driewerf's, we have such classes too.

And although I wouldn't call it 'creation science' per se, I would call it 'history'.

Your 'dream world' remark would be indicative of the student who would sit through the class with about ten preconceived mental blocks.

 

[Tiberius]

1. The Bible existentially dates this universe at just over 6000 years.

How do you know it wasn't being metaphorical?

2. b) As I have stated before: it traveled at the speed of God's will.

And how fast is that, in miles per hour?

4. Age would slow anything down; and if light is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I assume it would slow down as well. However, it slowed down anyway, as it now travels through a medium that didn't exist until the 2nd day of creation.

Don't think you're quite right there...

Your 'dream world' remark would be indicative of the student who would sit through the class with about ten preconceived mental blocks.

Such as the one that stops you from even contemplating the possibility that you are wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know it wasn't being metaphorical?

Faith says otherwise:

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

I know it was literal, because my faith tells me so.

And how fast is that, in miles per hour?

I don't know ... but at 186,283 mps, it breaks the light barrier, does it not?

In other words, the exact speed doesn't matter; since anything faster than 186,282 mps is what matters.

Don't think you're quite right there...

Send light through the air, then send it through water and see if its speed doesn't slow down.

Such as the one that stops you from even contemplating the possibility that you are wrong?

If I'm wrong, I'll answer to the Judge -- not you.

I won't turn my back on God because I have questions my pastor can't answer.

 

[Tiberius]

Faith says otherwise:

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

I know it was literal, because my faith tells me so.

Gut feeling. Gotcha.

I don't know ... but at 186,283 mps, it breaks the light barrier, does it not?

In other words, the exact speed doesn't matter; since anything faster than 186,282 mps is what matters.

But you can't show that anything moves at that speed or faster, can you? Again, you are just guessing.

Send light through the air, then send it through water and see if its speed doesn't slow down.

I was talking about your "Light slows down as it gets older" comment. Anyway, most light in the universe is still moving through a vacuum, so your claim that it is moving through a medium that didn't always exist doesn't quite make sense.

If I'm wrong, I'll answer to the Judge -- not you.

But you'll have to answer to someone, and it seems like you don't have the answers you need right now.

I can just imagine you appearing before God, and he says, "AV, you were wrong, but you never tried to find the truth, you just convinced yourself that you were right and ignored all of those people I sent your way to show you what was really happening..."

I won't turn my back on God because I have questions my pastor can't answer.

And has God provided the answers? Obviously not, because you still have the questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, most light in the universe is still moving through a vacuum, so your claim that it is moving through a medium that didn't always exist doesn't quite make sense.

Why?

Doesn't quite make sense to whom? you?

Yes, light today moves through a vacuum -- a vacuum that you ex nihilo deniers are having trouble understanding.

What I'm saying is, contrary to what you believe, that vacuum didn't always exist; and when it did show up, it came out of nowhere.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

So how should we approach this question? Should we throw up our hands because it is too hard to understand? Should we invent a cause, like fat fairies, and refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts the invented cause? Or should we apply the scientific method to find the answer?

I think we should be clearer about when we are talking about interesting/potentially important correlations and our speculations about the reasons for the correlations, as opposed to talking about methodologically rigorous studies of causation, so that the distinction is made.

I think we should be careful when interpreting correlations, that our categories may need adjusting, that the picture we have may be missing something very important, that causation isn't proven because of correlation.

 

[Tiberius]

Why?

Doesn't quite make sense to whom? you?

Yes, light today moves through a vacuum -- a vacuum that you ex nihilo deniers are having trouble understanding.

What I'm saying is, contrary to what you believe, that vacuum didn't always exist; and when it did show up, it came out of nowhere.

The trouble is that you are assuming that you are right in order to make this claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

The trouble is that you are assuming that you are right in order to make this claim.

Would you rather I assume I'm wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

I would rather you be open minded and willing to consider that you may be mistaken if such evidence appears.

You see, this is what is intelligent: "I have certain viewpoints and opinions. This evidence suggests that I may be mistaken, and my viewpoints and opinions may be incorrect. That evidence should be examined and judged on its own merits."

This is unintelligent. "I have certain viewpoints and opinions. I know I'm right and I don't care what you have because I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong. I don't need to see what you have, because I know it's wrong, and it's wrong because it disagrees with me."

Which of those two groups is closest to your position, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would rather you be open minded and willing to consider that you may be mistaken if such evidence appears.

Uh-huh.

As soon as that happens, then we get flooded with evidence of evolution; no global flood; no exodus, let alone any Jews in Egypt; no this, no that, and no thing in between.

No, thanks.

You see, this is what is intelligent: "I have certain viewpoints and opinions. This evidence suggests that I may be mistaken, and my viewpoints and opinions may be incorrect. That evidence should be examined and judged on its own merits."

This is unintelligent. "I have certain viewpoints and opinions. I know I'm right and I don't care what you have because I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong. I don't need to see what you have, because I know it's wrong, and it's wrong because it disagrees with me."

Which of those two groups is closest to your position, AV?

I'll pass on answering this on principle.

I have my own set of Boolean standards that others here know well.

I don't need to reply to yours.

 

[Tiberius]

Uh-huh.

As soon as that happens, then we get flooded with evidence of evolution; no global flood; no exodus, let alone any Jews in Egypt; no this, no that, and no thing in between.

No, thanks.

So you choose to remain close minded, because you like what you believe and you don't want to face reality?

I'll pass on answering this on principle.

Because to do so would be to admit that you are close minded. Are you close minded, AV?

I have my own set of Boolean standards that others here know well.

Your "boolean standards" are not like anything I have ever seen before.

I don't need to reply to yours.

Don't worry. You don't need to actually answer this in order for most of us here to know...

 

[Doveaman]

So do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease or not?

I accept that disease exist because we experience it.

I do not accept that man evolved from ape or bird from dinosaur because we do not experience it. It's all ASSUMED based on the evidence.

Friendly reminder about evidence: #74

 

[Delphiki]

Would you rather I assume I'm wrong?

How about like any honest person, you accept that you could be wrong?

 

[Cabal]

I have my own set of Boolean standards that others here know well.

Well done. Now turn those gears - do you question those standards? Do you question the one that says the Bible is automatically true and trumps science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you question the one that says the Bible is automatically true and trumps science?

Absolutely not.

My Boolean standards end at my Prime Directive.

 

[Cabal]

Absolutely not.

So now that we've established that, give Tiberius' question a go.