My Ignorant Challenge

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that the earth has only existed for a small fraction of the age of the universe, I'd say no.

Good point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what? Is your argument to be based on nothing more than, "Well, they have a snake, and we have a snake, so their snake must be the same basic thing as our snake"?

Really, that's a terrible argument and you aren't convincing anyone.

So all or most commonalities can be recognized, but the inclusion of snakes cannot?

"Don't pay any attention to that snake behind the curtain."

 

[klutedavid]

I'm afraid you've got it wrong.

There's a big difference between religious style faith and believing something is true based on evidence.

Although I find it very interesting that your argument in support of religious faith still boils down to claiming that belief based on evidence is no better than religious faith. Funny how you use a comparison to religious faith to belittle the alternative to religious faith, then act as though religious faith is suddenly a better option.

Science and religion are both based on a primary system of belief.

You believe in observations of the so called natural world in order to support various truth statements.

I believe in a revelation to support various truth statements.

Now for an example of the scientific belief system.

You count the number of planets in a solar system and argue about what that number of planets may be. You hold a gathering of scientists and reach a consensus on the number of such planets, that is, after much debate.

I see this scientific endeavor in the counting of planets as a useless and trivial pursuit. You would strongly disagree because you believe that the number of planets in a solar system is a critical truth.

What you believe determines how you understand your identity and your place in history. I am not a monkey!

 

[Astrophile]

I'm surprised that you haven't heard this.

NASA - UNIVERSE MAY BE YOUNGER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT

This article was published in 1999. Observations by WMAP and Planck since 2003 have yielded ages for the universe between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years, conveniently between the 15 billion and 12 billion years mentioned in the article.

 

[Kylie]

So all or most commonalities can be recognized, but the inclusion of snakes cannot?

"Don't pay any attention to that snake behind the curtain."

You haven't shown ANY commonalities!

 

[klutedavid]

This is not correct. You are making a very poor claim here. Evidence cannot rest on faith. That the universe can be understood is a concept that has been tested and verified countless times. No faith is involved. Those that rely on faith simply refuse to learn how to test one's beliefs. It is as if they knew that their beliefs could not stand up to reasonable tests.

You cannot possibly know that the universe is an observable entity in itself, that must be assumed from the start.

Even the introduction of dark energy and dark matter which is not observable is a necessity, to explain away the observable accelerating expansion of the universe. The observable is explained by that which cannot be observed.

You must accept be willing to accept paradoxes to study science.

Science at it's heart is a belief, a belief that truth or knowledge can be acquired through observation. I do not accept that primary premise.

 

[klutedavid]

This article was published in 1999. Observations by WMAP and Planck since 2003 have yielded ages for the universe between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years, conveniently between the 15 billion and 12 billion years mentioned in the article.

The universe is expanding faster than predicted.

Date: April 25, 2019

Source: Johns Hopkins University

Summary: New measurements from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that the Universe is expanding about 9% faster than expected based on its trajectory seen shortly after the big bang, astronomers say.

The new measurements, published April 25 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, reduce the chances that the disparity is an accident from 1 in 3,000 to only 1 in 100,000 and suggest that new physics may be needed to better understand the cosmos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot possibly know that the universe is an observable entity in itself, that must be assumed from the start.

Even the introduction of dark energy and dark matter which is not observable is a necessity, to explain away the observable accelerating expansion of the universe. The observable is explained by that which cannot be observed.

You must accept be willing to accept paradoxes to study science.

Science at it's heart is a belief, a belief that truth or knowledge can be acquired through observation. I do not accept that primary premise.

You do not seem to understand. We are not assuming when we observe the universe. We can test those observations and do so from birth, or perhaps even earlier.

As to dark matter and dark energy they can be observed. We observe them through their interaction with other objects in the universe.

and so called paradoxes are merely problems waiting to be solved.

 

[Kylie]

Science and religion are both based on a primary system of belief.

You believe in observations of the so called natural world in order to support various truth statements.

I believe in a revelation to support various truth statements.

Now for an example of the scientific belief system.

You count the number of planets in a solar system and argue about what that number of planets may be. You hold a gathering of scientists and reach a consensus on the number of such planets, that is, after much debate.

I see this scientific endeavor in the counting of planets as a useless and trivial pursuit. You would strongly disagree because you believe that the number of planets in a solar system is a critical truth.

What you believe determines how you understand your identity and your place in history. I am not a monkey!

Once again, no.

The basis for science is that it can be tested and checked.

It is nothing like religion.

 

[klutedavid]

Once again, no.

The basis for science is that it can be tested and checked.

It is nothing like religion.

That is not the case in all levels of science.

Science in many cases cannot be tested and checked. For example, we have evidence that the Big Bang event occurred but that evidence cannot be tested in any formal sense. Simply because the Big Bang event cannot be replicated in order to confirm that the evidence is in fact valid evidence.

The origin of life on this planet will never be confirmed in anyway no matter how much evidence may exist. Once again the origin of life event cannot be replicated in order to test the validity of the evidence.

Of course religion can be tested; it is just that it takes much longer to check. All questions will eventually be answered and you need to be patient.

 

[klutedavid]

You do not seem to understand.

That's where your wrong my friend.

A scientist believes that truth statements result from theories tested and developed from observational evidence. The scientific theory itself when tested in experiments designed to support that very same theory will return an affirmative result. Why am I not surprised?

The issue is of course is that the experiments are always conducted in exactly the same point in space time. For an experiment to be valid it must be conducted at millions of points across space time. Then you may be able to develop a valid theory, a theory with a rigid experimental basis.

We are not assuming when we observe the universe. We can test those observations and do so from birth, or perhaps even earlier.

You most certainly are assuming so very much about what you think you see. The real universe according to science is invisible, we see an almost insignificant part of the real universe.

We think dark matter and energy may exist but who really knows?

and so called paradoxes are merely problems waiting to be solved.

Paradoxes are logical contradictions.

Problems in science usually become far more complex over time.

 

[Kylie]

That is not the case in all levels of science.

Science in many cases cannot be tested and checked. For example, we have evidence that the Big Bang event occurred but that evidence cannot be tested in any formal sense. Simply because the Big Bang event cannot be replicated in order to confirm that the evidence is in fact valid evidence.

But other people can go and make their own measurements and check it. Do not think that testing in science means to replicate an event.

The origin of life on this planet will never be confirmed in anyway no matter how much evidence may exist. Once again the origin of life event cannot be replicated in order to test the validity of the evidence.

But the genetic evidence is there for all to see.

Of course religion can be tested; it is just that it takes much longer to check. All questions will eventually be answered and you need to be patient.

Please describe to me how religion can be objectively tested.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's where your wrong my friend.

A scientist believes that truth statements result from theories tested and developed from observational evidence. The scientific theory itself when tested in experiments designed to support that very same theory will return an affirmative result. Why am I not surprised?

Because reality works that way?

The issue is of course is that the experiments are always conducted in exactly the same point in space time. For an experiment to be valid it must be conducted at millions of points across space time. Then you may be able to develop a valid theory, a theory with a rigid experimental basis.

Nope. You need to refamiliarize yourself with the scientific method. That is in now way part of it. Where did you get this nonsense from? Let's discuss the scientific method, what is, and why it works so well.

You most certainly are assuming so very much about what you think you see. The real universe according to science is invisible, we see an almost insignificant part of the real universe.

We think dark matter and energy may exist but who really knows?

Paradoxes are logical contradictions.

Problems in science usually become far more complex over time.

I think that you have a serious lack of understanding of logic and science.

Perhaps you should learn what the word "assume" means. I have found that creationists have trouble with this concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the case in all levels of science.

Science in many cases cannot be tested and checked. For example, we have evidence that the Big Bang event occurred but that evidence cannot be tested in any formal sense. Simply because the Big Bang event cannot be replicated in order to confirm that the evidence is in fact valid evidence.

The origin of life on this planet will never be confirmed in anyway no matter how much evidence may exist. Once again the origin of life event cannot be replicated in order to test the validity of the evidence.

Of course religion can be tested; it is just that it takes much longer to check. All questions will eventually be answered and you need to be patient.

I can see that you do not understand how one tests a theory. Events leave evidence. That the event occurred can be confirmed by seeing if the observed evidence agrees with the theory. To have a theory it must be testable. That means that there are possible results from a test that would tell us that the theory is wrong. Theories are tested again and again because even though they can be confirmed in test after test it does not mean that we are absolutely sure that it is right, but as we keep shutting down avenues where it could be wrong our confidence in that theory keeps increasing. The theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed hundred of thousands if not millions of times. Sometimes those tests cause small adjustments to the theory, but they have never come close to refuting it.

And yes, the abiogenesis event cannot be repeated in the lab. One reason is that there appear to be multiple pathways to first life. Aspects of abiogenesis have been confirmed, but an overarching single pathway may never be. The problem for creationists is that their claim of it being impossible has been pretty much been shown to be wrong.

The main point that you seem to be missing is that events do not need to be repeatable to test them. The scientific method does not require that. It is the tests of the event that need to repeatable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You haven't shown ANY commonalities!

I've shown four,

All or most religions:

Claim a supernatural spirit leader, or god,
Have devoted adherents,
Proscribe behaviors that mitigate natural inclinations,
Offer a reward in an afterlife.

And many venerate snakes.

 

[Astrophile]

The universe is expanding faster than predicted.

Date: April 25, 2019

Source: Johns Hopkins University

Summary: New measurements from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that the Universe is expanding about 9% faster than expected based on its trajectory seen shortly after the big bang, astronomers say.

The new measurements, published April 25 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, reduce the chances that the disparity is an accident from 1 in 3,000 to only 1 in 100,000 and suggest that new physics may be needed to better understand the cosmos.

This is very interesting, but the abstract of the paper - see Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation... - doesn't say that the Big Bang didn't happen or that the universe is significantly less than 13.8 billion years old. Without more information, I can't have any idea of the implications of this difference between the two values of the Hubble constant.

The puzzle with this disparity is that it is not simply an error. If the Hubble constant obtained from the Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background was too low by 9%, we should only have to reduce the age of the universe by 9% and bring it down from 13.80 billion years to 12.56 billion years. However, so far as I understand it, the Hubble constant from Planck is correct for the early universe, and so, therefore, is the 13.80-billion year age of the Universe, and the Hubble constant for comparatively nearby galaxies (<100 million light-years) is also correct, but the two values do not agree.

 

[Kylie]

I've shown four,

All or most religions:

Claim a supernatural spirit leader, or god,
Have devoted adherents,
Proscribe behaviors that mitigate natural inclinations,
Offer a reward in an afterlife.

And many venerate snakes.

And you seriously expect me to conclude based on this that non-christian religions are a copy of Christianity?

Honestly, that's like saying a plane is a type of bicycle because it carries people, it has wheels, is powered, and moves forward.

 

[klutedavid]

This is very interesting, but the abstract of the paper - see Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation... - doesn't say that the Big Bang didn't happen or that the universe is significantly less than 13.8 billion years old. Without more information, I can't have any idea of the implications of this difference between the two values of the Hubble constant.

The puzzle with this disparity is that it is not simply an error. If the Hubble constant obtained from the Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background was too low by 9%, we should only have to reduce the age of the universe by 9% and bring it down from 13.80 billion years to 12.56 billion years. However, so far as I understand it, the Hubble constant from Planck is correct for the early universe, and so, therefore, is the 13.80-billion year age of the Universe, and the Hubble constant for comparatively nearby galaxies (<100 million light-years) is also correct, but the two values do not agree.

These new results suggest that our current understanding of physics is inadequate and that something important is missing. One possible explanation might be that the acceleration might be due to an increase in the density of dark energy. An alternative explanation might be that dark matter interacts more strongly with ordinary matter than previously thought. A less exciting explanation could be that there are “unknown unknowns” in the data caused by systematic effects and that a more careful analysis may one day reveal a subtle effect that has been overlooked. (zmescience.com)

 

[klutedavid]

I can see that you do not understand how one tests a theory. Events leave evidence. That the event occurred can be confirmed by seeing if the observed evidence agrees with the theory. To have a theory it must be testable. That means that there are possible results from a test that would tell us that the theory is wrong. Theories are tested again and again because even though they can be confirmed in test after test it does not mean that we are absolutely sure that it is right, but as we keep shutting down avenues where it could be wrong our confidence in that theory keeps increasing. The theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed hundred of thousands if not millions of times. Sometimes those tests cause small adjustments to the theory, but they have never come close to refuting it.

And yes, the abiogenesis event cannot be repeated in the lab. One reason is that there appear to be multiple pathways to first life. Aspects of abiogenesis have been confirmed, but an overarching single pathway may never be. The problem for creationists is that their claim of it being impossible has been pretty much been shown to be wrong.

The main point that you seem to be missing is that events do not need to be repeatable to test them. The scientific method does not require that. It is the tests of the event that need to repeatable.

I do not think that you understand what I am saying. Either I am not being clear enough or you do not understand the foundation of scientific thought.

Science is a belief system in that a scientist believes that observations in space time will yield truth statements regarding that space time.

I do not hold to that scientific belief system, I do not believe that observations in space time. Will deliver anything but an ever increasing need for ever more observations and more testing. It is a never ending loop that never really answers the simple questions.

Here is a simple question.

How many stars in the sky?

We are at over two trillion stars and still counting. Will we ever know how many stars are in the sky?

Probably not.

A simple scientific question that cannot be answered.

Here is another simple question.

What is in the center of the earth?

Well we don't really know because we cannot observe it and we cannot use equipment to detect it's structure.

Science will get funding for military research in an abundance, and for medical research because that returns an enormous profit.

Where there is no financial gain from a scientific research then the funding will be non existent.

So we are not really talking about science in a strict ideal sense, rather a commercial form of science.

I really see science as a destructive discipline.

Science ultimately will be responsible for the extinction of life, whether it be nuclear, global warming, a population that exceeds the planets ability to sustain it, e.t.c.

 

[Kylie]

Science is a belief system in that a scientist believes that observations in space time will yield truth statements regarding that space time.

No, science is a conclusion based on evidence. If you think the conclusion is wrong, feel free to present evidence to show it is wrong, and you will be listened to.

I do not hold to that scientific belief system, I do not believe that observations in space time. Will deliver anything but an ever increasing need for ever more observations and more testing. It is a never ending loop that never really answers the simple questions.

And yet you benefit so much from science. The computer you are using at the moment, for example.

Here is a simple question.

How many stars in the sky?

We are at over two trillion stars and still counting. Will we ever know how many stars are in the sky?

Probably not.

A simple scientific question that cannot be answered.

Our understanding of the way the universe works does not depend on knowing the exact number. Do you think scientists are saying, "Well, if there's fewer than five trillion stars, the universe works like this, but if there are more than five trillion stars, the universe works in this completely different way!" Of course not.

Here is another simple question.

What is in the center of the earth?

Well we don't really know because we cannot observe it and we cannot use equipment to detect it's structure.

Actually, seismographs have measured the way the shockwaves from earthquakes move through the different layers of the earth, and using that we have developed models of the interior structure of the earth which allow us to predict the behaviour of earthquake waves quite well.

Science will get funding for military research in an abundance, and for medical research because that returns an enormous profit.

Where there is no financial gain from a scientific research then the funding will be non existent.

So we are not really talking about science in a strict ideal sense, rather a commercial form of science.

That is not a fault in the scientific method.

I really see science as a destructive discipline.

Science ultimately will be responsible for the extinction of life, whether it be nuclear, global warming, a population that exceeds the planets ability to sustain it, e.t.c.

Science is a tool that helps us learn how the world works. If people use the results of that to destroy the world, don't blame the scientists. Blame the society that values short term gain more than long term results.