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.
Because you sound like somebody who is holding forth on a subject he has no knowledge of.
Renormalization is not a term in evolutionary biology.
Because you sound like somebody who is holding forth on a subject he has no knowledge of.
You still seem to be hung up on radiometric dating. Once again that is not important to the theory of evolution. We knew from geology before the technique was invented that the Earth is old. That is all that is required for evolution. Specific dates are nice to know but no key to the theory.Is there ever an assumption made that those isotopes have their particular parameters set as they are today because that has always been the case?
Is there an assumption made that there are no significant weak forces that have externally affected those parameters, for example?
Renormalization is not a physics term only: it is actually a mathematical term often borrowed by physicists. You can renormalize any data to fit what you expect: that is the purpose of renormalization.
I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.
When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.
What have you published in those areas?
As I just told you, no, this is a hypothesis that physicists have tested.Is there ever an assumption made that those isotopes have their particular parameters set as they are today because that has always been the case?
I already answered that question, too.Is there an assumption made that there are no significant weak forces that have externally affected those parameters, for example?
You have offered no example of renormalization occurring in evolutionary modeling, no ridiculous answers that had to be changed, no specifics on what biologists are supposedly doing, no evidence whatsoever that this supposed massive error is anything other than a fantasy that you dreamed up.Renormalization is not a physics term only: it is actually a mathematical term often borrowed by physicists. You can renormalize any data to fit what you expect: that is the purpose of renormalization.
I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.
When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.
This is the internet. If we didn't spend our time arguing with fools, the only things that would be left would be porn and cat videos.Remember, don't argue with a fool or else no one on the outside will be able to tell the difference.
I always find it strange to see religious people calling things they don't agree with "religion", as if that was a bad thing. How does that work exactly?I cannot accept that magnitude of error for something that not only declares its scientific authority, but also allows for social judgment placed upon those who do not accept it.
It is religion.
As I just told you, no, this is a hypothesis that physicists have tested.
I already answered that question, too.
You have offered no example of renormalization occurring in evolutionary modeling, no ridiculous answers that had to be changed, no specifics on what biologists are supposedly doing, no evidence whatsoever that this supposed massive error is anything other than a fantasy that you dreamed up.
I'm not that shy. Here is a list of my publications. It's not accurate for the physics ones, but it's got the biology ones right. A number of those publications involve evolution. Please tell me where I employed renormalization.I am most certainly NOT giving you access to my name, institution and other sensitive information.
This is the internet. If we didn't spend our time arguing with fools, the only things that would be left would be porn and cat videos.
I always find it strange to see religious people calling things they don't agree with "religion", as if that was a bad thing. How does that work exactly?
I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.
When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.
I'm not that shy. Here is a list of my publications. It's not accurate for the physics ones, but it's got the biology ones right. A number of those publications involve evolution. Please tell me where I employed renormalization.
You sound exactly like a creationist trying o tell a biologist his job. Like them, you make assertions you don't bother to substantiate. Probably because you lack the specialised knowledge to do so.
So, physicists absolutely know for a fact that there are no external sources of weak force interacting with isotopes that could influence their lifetimes? Is this the case even though neutrinos have a mean free path of one light-year in lead, and are the fundamental particles for weak force (radiation/decay)? Is this also true even though the decay of a neutron involves expelling a neutrino, or that the absorption of a neutrino involves releasing energy in the form of a photon and neutrino?
Indeed you have; you have designated physicists' knowledge on scientific phenomena as god-like - to be able to know for a fact that their hypotheses and parameters are only affected by the parameters for which they have determined.
Excellent.
That is not an unreasonable stance to take. But then perhaps you should not tout your supposed ability. I have also see those that claim to have degrees that they clearly did not. Me, I have a mere BS, which means that I barely dipped my toes into science. I will gladly defer to my betters here.I am glad you are not shy. That is your prerogative. I am not shy either, I just fully understand the power of the internet, hacking and the purposeful destruction of one's character and credibility because of disagreements. I have seen it too often in my own field. For me, it isn't about shyness.
I keep my "internet," and professional life separate. This is, for example, the only social network I use.
Physicists know that they have looked for evidence of external forces that could change lifetimes -- and found them in some cases, but not such that it would alter radiometric dating. They have found good evidence that fundamental physics has not changed over billions of years, and that there are no forces that would disrupt radiometric dating that are also consistent with the observed state of the Earth.So, physicists absolutely know for a fact that there are no external sources of weak force interacting with isotopes that could influence their lifetimes?
Of course it's true given those facts. Were you under the impression that particle physicists are unaware of the basics of particle physics?Is this the case even though neutrinos have a mean free path of one light-year in lead, and are the fundamental particles for weak force (radiation/decay)? Is this also true even though the decay of a neutron involves expelling a neutrino, or that the absorption of a neutrino involves releasing energy in the form of a photon and neutrino?
God-like? No. But physicists do know a lot about physics.Indeed you have; you have designated physicists' knowledge on scientific phenomena as god-like - to be able to know for a fact that their hypotheses and parameters are only affected by the parameters for which they have determined.
sfs also has a doctorate in physics, if I recall correctly. He knows far more than either of us on that area of science.
.You rely on science, every hourof every day of your life. Every time you visit a doctor, you are relying on the theory of evolution, as painful as that may be for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?