The Laws of the Universe

[dad]

Actually, how about proving any of your "Split" blather -- what, how, or when -- pick one.

Actually let's look at what science knows. What you chose to believe or wave away is another matter.

 

[dad]

Then you are wrong.

You would need to do more than say so.

Just because you do not know it does not mean that it is not known. What happens inside stars is quite well understood, and everything we see in the universe supports the accuracy of the model we have.

You understand it? The talk about details here.

If you were right, then our model of stars would NOT match what we see in distant stars. And yet they match perfectly.

Your models often fail. Lots of stuff is unexpected, unpredicted, and a surprise. So called science merely scrambles to cook up a present state explanation, and boast how clever it is for so doing.

Here you go. A star being ripped apart by the gravity of a black hole. Oh, and here's another one for you. And another.

Your first link didn't work...this from the second...(as lame a piece of same state conjecture with no support, and after the fact as can be!)"

"
What may have happened is that a star orbiting the black hole just fell in for some reason. As this took place, the star was stretched out into a long thing blob by tidal forces from the black hole, and at some point, the gravity from the black hole overwhelmed the gravity of the star itself, literally ripping it apart. The leftover star pieces would have orbited the black hole for a short time forming an accretion disk, which would have given off enormous amounts of energy before crossing the black hole's event horizon and exiting our dimension.
It's hard to tell exactly what went on a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but based on the data"


Kids, behold the wisdom of man!!!

Thanks for that.

How do we know it is being affected by gravity? because it is behaving in excactly the manner that einstein's theory of relativity tells us it will behave when it is being affected by gravity.

So Al said that black holes would stretch stars like blobs, and exit our 'dimension'..and have stars just fall in "for some reason"

Paalleeeese.

If the laws operating way out there are NOT the same as they are here, why do they look like they do? As I've said, what we see happening millions of lightyears away fits in perfectly with what we would expect if the laws operating here were also operating there.

There is no distance possible unless our space exists with our laws all the way and you do not know that. Stop thinking spaghetti monster black holes are gobbling stars up, and things might not look as you thought they did!

I asked for TESTABLE evidence. You've given me a vague statement. So go on, be specific, like I've asked you countless times. What DNA evidence makes no sense if you assume an ancient earth, but makes perfect sense when explained by your ideas?

What piece doesn't?? I claim it ALL. You have none.

So you are saying that while the continents were zipping away at a rate of speedd which would have caused incredible heating and volcanic activity by the sheer friction of moving trillions of tons of rock over other rock... and nobody noticed? And there isn't even any geologic record anywhere of such intense volcanic activity!

The world was repopulated with 8 people remember? This was likely about the time that men all started to be unable to speak to one another also! Now add to that the known fact that heat was not produced or retained..

In many cases the daughter material also breaks down. So if A breaks down to B which breaks down to C, then we can look at the ratio of A to B and we can measure it against the ratio of B to C.

Here. Go and read this. Go and actually learn something.

Where in that link does it address your claims here? Can you name me one daughter material that breaks down as you claim, that also was not here before the present decay state started?

So you are assuming that the laws were different in order to show that the laws were different. Tell me, do you ever get dizzy going in circles like this?

No. I am assuming that man doesn't know but has assumed. In fact that is precisely the case. Ask someone that really knows science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually let's look at what science knows. What you chose to believe or wave away is another matter.

So, you're both unable and unwilling to back up anything you claim?

 

[Michael]

So, you're both unable and unwilling to back up anything you claim?

Yes, I believe that about sums it up.

 

[SharpSolaris]

distance is involved here obviously!

A! Did you mean distance "from the center of mass." OK.

But if we know speed of the object, and if we know the time it takes to make one revolution, we can figure out how big its orbit must be. The total distance around the orbit must be equal to (the speed of the star) multiplied by (the time it takes to complete one orbit).

How can we know the speed? Size of the shift in wavelength is related to the speed of the object towards us or away from us (Doppler shift).

How can we know the time it takes to complete one orbit? We can know period of the orbit (by eclipse - One star closes another).

 

[dad]

So, you're both unable and unwilling to back up anything you claim?

I do not claim the bible or God. I accept them because of overwhelming proofs. I do not accept a present state past, because there is exactly NO proof or evidence whatsoever. So far all that has been demoed here is a biased and fanatical imposition of assumptions and beliefs on the glorious things we see. ...I need a shower...yech.

 

[dad]

A! Did you mean distance "from the center of mass." OK.

I mean ANY distance measured from earth's sphere, that is used in any calculations.

But if we know speed of the object, and if we know the time it takes to make one revolution, we can figure out how big its orbit must be.

How do you know the speed without knowing how far away it is, and how big it is, and a few other things?? All you mean is that, IF our space and time and laws and light and gravity applied out there, then, the orbiting star would have so much mass and speed, and etc etc. In reality none of that is known. An atom is little and has things 'orbiting' it as well. Unless we know how big and far away, and what is really going on, and what it is really made of etc etc..it is ALL just conjecture, and a manufactured model.

The total distance around the orbit must be equal to (the speed of the star) multiplied by (the time it takes to complete one orbit).

So now you REQUIRE speed! How is that determined by you? If you do not even know how big or far away things are, what basis for speed have you??

How can we know the speed? Size of the shift in wavelength is related to the speed of the object towards us or away from us (Doppler shift).

Ah...pretty vague. And if we look at redshifting, we will see that that is 100% imposing earth laws and light far away for no particular reason.

How can we know the time it takes to complete one orbit? We can know period of the orbit (by eclipse - One star closes another).

That alone is meaningless.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not claim the bible or God.

or rationality, or reason, or coherence, or...

I accept them because of overwhelming proofs.

None of which you're able/willing to discuss.

I do not accept a present state past, because there is exactly NO proof or evidence whatsoever.

That's never stopepd you before -- the truth is, you don't accept these things because there's nothing in it for you.

So far all that has been demoed here is a biased and fanatical imposition of assumptions and beliefs on the glorious things we see. ...I need a shower...yech.

And so you blather on.

 

[Tiberius]

You would need to do more than say so.

I've been asking you to do that regarding your viewpoints for ages and you haven't.

So I'll tell you what: I will if you will.

You understand it? The talk about details here.

I don't personally understand it in great detail. But if you actually want to learn (which I doubt, but anyway...), here's a good start for you.

Your models often fail. Lots of stuff is unexpected, unpredicted, and a surprise. So called science merely scrambles to cook up a present state explanation, and boast how clever it is for so doing.

If the models used in science often failed, they wouldn't be used.

But if you think that the models fail, why don't you write a paper about it and go win yourself a Nobel Prize...?

Your first link didn't work...this from the second...(as lame a piece of same state conjecture with no support, and after the fact as can be!)"

It works fine for me.

Kids, behold the wisdom of man!!!

Typical creationist. Discount the whole thing because one part is unknown.

So Al said that black holes would stretch stars like blobs,

Because of gravity.

and exit our 'dimension'..and have stars just fall in "for some reason"

Again, it's called gravity.

And are you trying to say that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong?

There is no distance possible unless our space exists with our laws all the way and you do not know that. Stop thinking spaghetti monster black holes are gobbling stars up, and things might not look as you thought they did!

Give me a reason to stop thinking that and I will.

You've consistantly failed to do that so far.

What piece doesn't?? I claim it ALL. You have none.

Then take one piece and explain why it disproves my position.

The world was repopulated with 8 people remember? This was likely about the time that men all started to be unable to speak to one another also! Now add to that the known fact that heat was not produced or retained..

Please explain how these things have been verified. Please note: "An old book says so" is not a way to verify anything.

Where in that link does it address your claims here? Can you name me one daughter material that breaks down as you claim, that also was not here before the present decay state started?

The link explains how readio dating works and why it is accurate. Since you onbviously are ignorant of those, You need to learn the basics before we can discuss anything else.

No. I am assuming that man doesn't know but has assumed. In fact that is precisely the case. Ask someone that really knows science.

In other words, you are saying, "If you assume what I am assuming, you will reach the same conclusion as me, which is a different conclusion to the one you will reach if you don't assume the things I am assuming."

Well, I'm happy for you. But until you can give me an actual reason to assume the same things as you (y'know, something with this evidence stuff), I'm going to go with the thousands of people worldwide who actually use this stuff to produce results.

And again, would you kindly provide a piece of verifiable evidence to support your claims? You;ve done nothing so far but make the claims. it is now time for you to support them!

 

[dad]

-- the truth is, you don't accept these things because there's nothing in it for you.
.

Since you didn't mention "these things" there is nothing for anyone...why pretend to debate?

 

[dad]

I've been asking you to do that regarding your viewpoints for ages and you haven't.

So I'll tell you what: I will if you will.

The viewpoints of science are what need to be looked at here. Biblical beliefs are beyond anyone's ability to deny.

I don't personally understand it in great detail. But if you actually want to learn (which I doubt, but anyway...), here's a good start for you.

Give us some point from your link...not that you understand it

If the models used in science often failed, they wouldn't be used.

No model of a same state past is used...just imagined.

But if you think that the models fail, why don't you write a paper about it and go win yourself a Nobel Prize...?

None exist that do anything. What works is present state laws and knowledge. The rest is imaginary.

Typical creationist. Discount the whole thing because one part is unknown.

If a witness is caught lying the testimony is suspect.

Because of gravity.

Where? Here...or in deep time and space?

Again, it's called gravity.

And are you trying to say that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong?

Yes, of course. It is perhaps right in this earth sphere and state. It is relative only to the box here! Cute, but useless in discussing anything beyond our laws.

Then take one piece and explain why it disproves my position.

Since all science does is impose a biased belief based coloring on pieces, no piece will prove that science is wrong. It's bigger than that

Please explain how these things have been verified. Please note: "An old book says so" is not a way to verify anything.

It fits God's word and all evidences we do have. Science has nothing it can say against it.

The link explains how readio dating works and why it is accurate. Since you onbviously are ignorant of those, You need to learn the basics before we can discuss anything else.

You are kidding yourself. Name some details of decay you think I am missing?

In other words, you are saying, "If you assume what I am assuming, you will reach the same conclusion as me, which is a different conclusion to the one you will reach if you don't assume the things I am assuming."

That is what science says. However, they need more.

Well, I'm happy for you. But until you can give me an actual reason to assume the same things as you (y'know, something with this evidence stuff), I'm going to go with the thousands of people worldwide who actually use this stuff to produce results.

No stuff exists or is used or was used or ever will be used from a same state past. Relax. Zip. Nada. None at all. Not a speck. Not a shred.

We can evidence that here and now...just try to list something we use from the same state past!

 

[Tiberius]

The viewpoints of science are what need to be looked at here. Biblical beliefs are beyond anyone's ability to deny.

In other words, you read it in the Bible and you really really believe it, despite there being no method by which to empirically verify it.

Give us some point from your link...not that you understand it

You have made it clear that you don't understand these things either. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

No model of a same state past is used...just imagined.

And you STILL have to provide proof for this.

None exist that do anything. What works is present state laws and knowledge. The rest is imaginary.

The model of radioactive decay doesn't do anything - except allow us to determine the ages of rocks.

Your flawed models are imaginary. Stop using strawmen.

If a witness is caught lying the testimony is suspect.

Have you ever told a lie? yes? Then I declare all your claims made in this thread to be suspect!

Where? Here...or in deep time and space?

Both.

What we see locally and what we see in the depths of the universe are both nicely explained by the same theory of gravity.

Yes, of course. It is perhaps right in this earth sphere and state. It is relative only to the box here! Cute, but useless in discussing anything beyond our laws.

Despite the fact that it makes perfect sense when applied to things in deep space?

if it's wrong, why does it make perfect sense?

Since all science does is impose a biased belief based coloring on pieces, no piece will prove that science is wrong. It's bigger than that

So you are saying that it is wrong, but you can't show that it is wrong.

So if our "wrong" science is indistinguishable from what is right, what difference does it make? And if they both look the same, is there a difference at all? And if there's no difference, why the kerfuffle about the whole thing?

It fits God's word and all evidences we do have. Science has nothing it can say against it.

AH! Here we go! You are simply trying to fit the evidence into the conclusions you have already decided upon!

So you do not look at the universe to find out how it works. You look at the Bible to find out how the universe works, and if anything from reality contradicts the Bible, you must find a way to force the pieces together.

So your claim that the laws of nature were different in the past is NOT based on observation or knowledge. it is based on your stubbornness and refusal to change your mind in the face of evidence.

There's a word for that - close-mindedness.

You are kidding yourself. Name some details of decay you think I am missing?

The fact that there's no mechanism to alter the decay rates?

That is what science says. However, they need more.

No. You just decide they need more because they aren't agreeing with you.

No stuff exists or is used or was used or ever will be used from a same state past. Relax. Zip. Nada. None at all. Not a speck. Not a shred.

We can evidence that here and now...just try to list something we use from the same state past!

We use billion year old igneous rocks to date fossils.

 

[sandwiches]

Biblical beliefs are beyond anyone's ability to deny.

Why?

 

[dad]

Why?

Because no one can deny Peter walked on water, can they, or anything else. You weren't there.

 

[dad]

In other words, you read it in the Bible and you really really believe it, despite there being no method by which to empirically verify it.

Empirical is for suckers. Real proof is much better. Witnesses saw stuff. Not like they could make it up, some family member or etc would have busted em.....'gee Mary never really had a baby...' etc.

You have made it clear that you don't understand these things either. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If you get to where you understand something....tell us bout it.

The model of radioactive decay doesn't do anything - except allow us to determine the ages of rocks.

No, it allows us to see how they NOW decay.

Have you ever told a lie? yes? Then I declare all your claims made in this thread to be suspect!

I agree. But they ain't exactly the bible!

What we see locally and what we see in the depths of the universe are both nicely explained by the same theory of gravity.

Nicely explained by Mother Goose too? You need more.

Despite the fact that it makes perfect sense when applied to things in deep space?

It doesn't. That is just all you ever tasted.

if it's wrong, why does it make perfect sense?

Example? What, a speck sized universe makes sense??

So you are saying that it is wrong, but you can't show that it is wrong.

I am saying that if it is right, you need some evidence.

So if our "wrong" science is indistinguishable from what is right, what difference does it make?

Well, when that wrong blurry nonsense waves off actual creation...we have a problem.

And if they both look the same, is there a difference at all? And if there's no difference, why the kerfuffle about the whole thing?

How it looks when tarred with a same state brush is not the only factor in life. Really.

AH! Here we go! You are simply trying to fit the evidence into the conclusions you have already decided upon!

Since I don't know, maybe what I am doing is shaking things up, to see what can stand?

So you do not look at the universe to find out how it works. You look at the Bible to find out how the universe works, and if anything from reality contradicts the Bible, you must find a way to force the pieces together.

To know how the universe works the bible is required! That is why science is totally wrong.

So your claim that the laws of nature were different in the past is NOT based on observation or knowledge. it is based on your stubbornness and refusal to change your mind in the face of evidence.

NO claims about the state of the past are. The objects in this state that you think make up objective reality are no platform to infinity and beyond after all. get over it.

The fact that there's no mechanism to alter the decay rates?

Why alter them if there was no rate or decay? That is like tinkering IN the fishbowl.

No. You just decide they need more because they aren't agreeing with you.

They all agree.

We use billion year old igneous rocks to date fossils.

Repeating it won't make it true.

 

[Nostromo]

Because no one can deny Peter walked on water, can they, or anything else. You weren't there.

Does it really need explaining to you just how stupid that reasoning is?

 

[sandwiches]

Because no one can deny Peter walked on water, can they, or anything else. You weren't there.

Sure I can. It didn't happen. Done. I thought you said it couldn't be done.

 

[Tiberius]

Because no one can deny Peter walked on water, can they, or anything else. You weren't there.

You also can't deny that I just turned into a squirrel. You didn't see, so you can't say it didn't happen!

See what's happening? This logic you are using leads to believing things that cannot be verified. You have no way of knowing whether it is really the truth or not, whether it actually happened.

Empirical is for suckers. Real proof is much better. Witnesses saw stuff. Not like they could make it up, some family member or etc would have busted em.....'gee Mary never really had a baby...' etc.

Firstly, empirical proof is for suckers? Yeah, looking at REALITY to find out how REALITY works is a really dumb idea. *Sighs and shakes head*

Secondly, how do you know that nobody back then didn't say "Hey, that never happened!" I mean, have you looked at every piece of evidence? And given that the people who put the Bible together in the first place wanted to make their religion look good, do you really think that they would have included anything that showed that they were wrong?

If you get to where you understand something....tell us bout it.

I understand it somewhat. Certainly not to the degree that some scientists have, but i understand the general principles. And yet when I have explained it to you, you just respond with "Fraid not!" I'm not going to waste my time. You have no desire to actually learn. You are not open to the possibility that you are wrong. All you care about is throwing your ideas out there without providing any evidence to show that they are true and ignoring anything anyone says different.

You are close-minded.

No, it allows us to see how they NOW decay.

And if they have only been decaying for a few thousand years, why do they shopw several million years of decay?

I agree. But they ain't exactly the bible!

That's true. So if I can't trust what you say if you have been shown to be mistaken, then I certainly can't trust the Bible if it is shown to be wrong about something, can I?

Nicely explained by Mother Goose too? You need more.

Mother goose? What nonsense is this that you are speaking?

It doesn't. That is just all you ever tasted.

yes it does.

Example? What, a speck sized universe makes sense??

When did I say the universe was speck sized?

I am saying that if it is right, you need some evidence.

I have given it to you. You just stick your fingers in your ears so you don't see the nasty evidence that disagrees with you.

Well, when that wrong blurry nonsense waves off actual creation...we have a problem.

Once again, creationists assume the very thing that they want to prove.

You do realise that assume your conclusions and then picking and choosing your evidence based on whether it fits your predetermined conclusion is NOT actually the way to find out how reality really works, yes?

How it looks when tarred with a same state brush is not the only factor in life. Really.

That "brush" is weilded by reality. I've learnt that you don't give much credence to reality.

Since I don't know, maybe what I am doing is shaking things up, to see what can stand?

Just a shame for you that you've tried to knock down something that has the sturdiest of foundations.

To know how the universe works the bible is required! That is why science is totally wrong.

provide proof of this.

NO claims about the state of the past are. The objects in this state that you think make up objective reality are no platform to infinity and beyond after all. get over it.

Are you trying to be Buzz Lightyear?

Why alter them if there was no rate or decay? That is like tinkering IN the fishbowl.

Then again I will ask why rocks show decay of several million years when you say they have only had a few thousand years to decay.

They all agree.

Science agrees? With reality? yes.

The Bible agrees with reality? I'm afraid not.

Repeating it won't make it true.

You seem to think it does. After all, you've repeated your position a thousand times already in this thread without providing a shred of evidence.

Anyway, I don't need to repeat myself to show that it is true. The evidence is there for all to see (unlike the bible). I've tried to show you, but you refuse to look.

 

[dad]

Does it really need explaining to you just how stupid that reasoning is?

Yes

 

[dad]

Sure I can. It didn't happen. Done. I thought you said it couldn't be done.

Right, it can't. Not in a way that is based in evidence and knowledge. Exclude yourself from that all you like. I doubt it surprises anyone here. And if you do have proof Peter never walked on water let us see it now. Simple.