Science Proves Creation

[sjastro]

You have no idea what you're dealing with.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

His intellect and knowledge base would make Watson and Stockfish drool.

It's comical how you can't get out out of the apophenia loop.
Tell me was Watson and Stockfish a creation by God or computer scientists?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's comical how you can't get out out of the apophenia loop.
Tell me was Watson and Stockfish a creation by God or computer scientists?

Computer scientists.

 

[caze]

Chemistry with Charisma

 

[sjastro]

Computer scientists.

And did computer scientists rely on the supernatural in creating AI?

 

[AV1611VET]

And did computer scientists rely on the supernatural in creating AI?

No.

 

[sjastro]

No.

So by your own admission the creation of Watson and Stockfish by computer scientists did not require the supernatural nor the Bible for answers.
You will find this applies to science in general as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

So by your own admission the creation of Watson and Stockfish by computer scientists did not require the supernatural nor the Bible for answers.
You will find this applies to science in general as well.

What's your point?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's your point?

Isn't it obvious? You have a very strong tendency to apply the supernatural in places where even most people who believe in such things don't and it is unneeded. It tends to make you look the fool. This applies to Camarys and crop circles alike.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know. There have been various suggestions, such as vacuum fluctuations, colliding branes, our universe being a black hole in another universe, and even creation by a god, but, so far as I am aware, nobody really knows.

Do any of those except "god(s)" match
" creation" as per dictionary?

As in, in each of the others thete's already all the " stuff"
of the uni, just in a diff form.

 

[Astrid]

Proof?

How about first you respond to post #414
and let us know if you understand why
" science proves" is a nonsensical statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about first you respond to post #414
and let us know if you understand why
" science proves" is a nonsensical statement.

Because science is myopic.

 

[HARK!]

How about first you respond to post #414
and let us know if you understand why
" science proves" is a nonsensical statement.

I already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.

 

[Shemjaza]

I already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.

I believe you are misunderstanding her.

"Proof" is not relevant to science because science deals in justifiable conclusions from evidence and not absolute proof. No scientific theory is proven beyond possibility of doubt, it is always a tentative conclusion.

In philosophy and mathematics an idea can have proof that it follows from whatever axioms are relevant... in science it is limited to the demonstrating found in the world around us.


However if you use "proof" in the sense of common language or legal terms then many scientific theories like
evolution and some aspects of relativity then they are proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence.

 

[HARK!]

I believe you are misunderstanding her.

"Proof" is not relevant to science because science deals in justifiable conclusions from evidence and not absolute proof. No scientific theory is proven beyond possibility of doubt, it is always a tentative conclusion.

In philosophy and mathematics an idea can have proof that it follows from whatever axioms are relevant... in science it is limited to the demonstrating found in the world around us.


However if you use "proof" in the sense of common language or legal terms then many scientific theories like
evolution and some aspects of relativity then they are proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence.

I believe that you misunderstood me. The fact that you confirmed what I said is evidence that supports that belief.

 

[Shemjaza]

I believe that you misunderstood me. The fact that you confirmed what I said is evidence that supports that belief.

I don't understand your point here.

You haven't been responding clearly to requests for evidence in this thread. You seem to be making predictions that the universe should behave according to Newtonian laws while also acknowledging ages and timelines associated with relativity.

 

[HARK!]

I don't understand your point here.

You haven't been responding clearly to requests for evidence in this thread. You seem to be making predictions that the universe should behave according to Newtonian laws while also acknowledging ages and timelines associated with relativity.

Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?

 

[Gene2memE]

Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?

Probably depends if you're a photon or not.

 

[Shemjaza]

Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?

At the extremes theoretically. Anything with mass can't ever get to the speed of light, but it can approach it.

(Photons do not have mass so can travel at the speed of light and would have zero time as an internal reference.)

 

[Astrid]

I already did that. Let's not deflect. I'm truly interested to see your proof.

Nonsense, and it would have taken fewer words to
just give a real answer either of the times i asked.
So no deal, i dont play this way

 

[sjastro]

Can time cease to exist in your understanding of relativity?

Time doesn't cease to exist, it can be stopped or frozen.
To understand this one needs to know the difference between proper time and coordinate time.
Proper time is time measured by a "clock" attached to an object, for example it be a person's biological clock, the resonant frequency from atoms in an atomic clock or a clock on a spacecraft, whereas the coordinate time of the object is measured by an observer and can vary from proper time depending on factors such as the motion of the observer or the effect of gravity on time.

In the case of an object on the event horizon of a black hole, the coordinate time of the object as measured by an observer outside the black hole's event horizon will appear to have frozen or stopped, while the proper time continues as normal for the object.
This is an example of gravitational time dilation.