The Laws of the Universe

[Greg1234]

But science hasn't replaced God -- all it's replaced is an imperfect interpretation of an imperfect record from imperfect men concerning what God has done.

What has actually happened is science has replaced an imperfect interpretation of the data by an imperfect sect calling themselves the "scientific establishment" confirming the interpretation of another scientific sect outside that of the True Scientists (TM). Analysis of texts doesn't require materialism by the way. Multiple angles are provided through multiple denominations and religions along with experimental data painting the picture.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What has actually happened is science has replaced an imperfect interpretation of the data by an imperfect sect calling themselves the "scientific establishment" confirming the interpretation of another scientific sect outside that of the True Scientists (TM).

You keep believing that, Skippy.

Analysis of texts doesn't require materialism by the way. Multiple angles are provided through multiple denominations and religions along with experimental data painting the picture.

Indeed -- literary criticism is a very interesting and useful field of study... when discussing literature.

 

[Nathan Poe]

All believers accept that God created the earth and heavens. Any believers in Christ and salvation here that do not? Speak up...

Any Christian that thinks that Christ never made all things and without Him was not anything made that was made?!

Speak up.

Good, so all Christians are in agreement as to the Who did it... pretty much exactly what I said...

Creation is so woven into the whole bible, that getting rid of it is a bit like getting rid of a man's brain...what's left just won't be a real man.

... and then you go off into your self-important fantasy, far too in love with your own idea of how it was done to accept being outdated.

Scratch the surface of a fundie, and one always finds a narcissist -- do you honestly think that Christianity will collapse without your interpretation of the Creation myth?

I'm sorry to say, but the Christian faith will chug along just fine without you or your ideas, dad -- you're just not important or essential to it in any way.

 

[Davian]

Having a galaxy confuence or conference or whatever it may be need to mean what you think. The observations are only decades old in many cases, right? How much 'merging' went on in that time? How much involves imaginary old ages? If wee look at just the fats, I have no doubt that it will not support anything old or same state.

Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?

You want a bible case for when the days of Peleg were? (when the earth was split or divided). Well, I use Usshers dates more or less. Any question of accuracy is fairly minimal.

No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.

Well, if our space can bend light, one might ask what different space can do to it!
Are we back to the bible again? Well, I use the rough figure 4400 years ago for the nature change. The change was not directly mentioned, and most have attributed all the changes to the flood. However, that really doesn't stand up as the explanation, and leaves unacceptable problems with migration and adaptation after the flood time, as well as what had to fit on the boat, when the continents separated, etc etc. Using science evidence as a balance, the nature change after the flood is a better fit.

If you can't put it in the form of a hypothesis it just looks like more arm waving.

Perhaps you should put the bible aside and just use external sources to support your views.

Well, it isn't like they are lions Besides, face it, they really have precious little to go on for deep space! Redshift, and the creation remnant background...whoopee do. Those are easy to deal with.

Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?

From a 'creator of the universe' perspective, I do wonder about the CMB radiation. Why all of that antimatter?

OK, you asked for it...Let's look at that.

Name one galaxy merging, and let's look at the facts and the basis for the claims.

I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.

No. Nothing looks old unless one looks at it through the eyes of present state past belief. Other than that, it looks just fine.

Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

 

[Tiberius]

That depends on what is being looked at. If we look at radioactive decay, the results of ratios existing for parent/daughter materials, etc, result from something having been responsible for the materials. What that is we don't know. They have noticed that things are in this state which now includes decay, so have attributed all the materials to this! That is not based on knowledge, but ignorance. Anything that we get that results from the ratio pattern has nothing nothing nothing to do with a present decay state that science can prove.

Except that this assumption explains everything that we see. It does not contradict anything that exists in this reality.

Not true actually. You intentionally won't tell us, and I doubt anyone cares. What, want to pretend that whatever it was was real important?

Okay, let's recap for those of you playing at home...

You said that admitting ignorance is a good first step.

I replied by saying that I agreed, and once you admit that you don't know something, going out to investigate it so you can learn is an even better second step.

You then accused me of jabbering after milk and apple pies. Or something. Your response was a complete non sequitur.

Nonetheless, I actually thought about what you had said and eventually concluded that you thought the idea of studying reality to learn how reality works was "jabbering. So I asked you if investigating reality to learn about reality was unfamiliar to you.

You then asked for an example.

I asked you, "an example of what?" I mean, I asked if you had ever thought that investigating reality was a good way to learn about reality, and you asked me for an example. it makes about as much sense as you asking me for an example of how I've never gone skydiving.

You stated that you were asking me for an example of whatever I was talking about. Despite the fact I was asking you a question, not making a claim that required an example to back it up.

Since you had apparently forgotten what we were talking about (as well as Iforgotten that I was asking you a question which required an answer from you, not an example from me), I asked why you were so forgetful.

You then appeared to be unaware that we were continuing a discussion that we had started earlier. Perhaps you thought that the conversation had just started in the middle?

At this point I concluded that no one could actually be that stupid, and started playing around. If you really are that absent minded, I apologize (and I admit that it would explain a great many things about your posts).

But, since I am growing tired of this, I will ask you the original question again. I'll even put it in a pretty colour so you'll see it more clearly and be less likely to forget what the question actually is.

Do you think that investigation of the real world is a good way to learn about the aspects of the real world that we are currently ignorant of?

If you'd like it written in another colour, please just say so. That purple looked pretty nice...

So do many fairy tales. But the reasons there is agreement are all circular.

No they aren't. They are independantly testable, and HAVE been tested and verified.

 

[dad]

Good, so all Christians are in agreement as to the Who did it... pretty much exactly what I said...

Also when....IN THE BEGINNING. As I said.

I'm sorry to say, but the Christian faith will chug along just fine without you or your ideas, dad -- you're just not important or essential to it in any way.

Maybe comment on your own faith.

 

[dad]

Of course the point is that DNA a fairly recent discovery confirms that the geneologys in the Bible are true. Somewhere along the way people lost site of the fact that the Bible is a history of the Hebrew people. Science helps us to get everything back into it's proper perspective.

Oh...OK. I have to agree with that. Science that is worth it's salt agrees with God.

 

[dad]

Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?

Yes. Nothing is real old.

No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.

Science can't hypothesize about what it knows not of. YOU move it!!

Perhaps you should put the bible aside and just use external sources to support your views.

The bible has the God exclusive. Get used to it. No getting away from it.

Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?

They can't be falsified. Can they? Say how?

From a 'creator of the universe' perspective, I do wonder about the CMB radiation. Why all of that antimatter?

"All" the antimatter? Where? In space? Seems they can't quite find it yet...right?

I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.

Yoiu do that fine by failing to support your own. No worries.

Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

It is not known. So Science doesn't know. It is against the truth of God. So I know it is false. Prove me wrong.

 

[dad]

Except that this assumption explains everything that we see. It does not contradict anything that exists in this reality.

All you got to do is get the far universe in that reality and the far past. Then you might be onto something.

Okay, let's recap for those of you playing at home...

You said that admitting ignorance is a good first step.

True. For those that are ignorant.

I replied by saying that I agreed, and once you admit that you don't know something, going out to investigate it so you can learn is an even better second step.

You can't. Man is too small.

You then accused me of jabbering after milk and apple pies. Or something. Your response was a complete non sequitur.

Well, whatever I was responding to I don't remember. Probably some glib claim that man wants to do great things and know a lot...yada yada..

Nonetheless, I actually thought about what you had said and eventually concluded that you thought the idea of studying reality to learn how reality works was "jabbering. So I asked you if investigating reality to learn about reality was unfamiliar to you.

Your range of investigative powers is too limited to challenge God's past.

You then asked for an example.

I asked you, "an example of what?" I mean, I asked if you had ever thought that investigating reality was a good way to learn about reality, and you asked me for an example. it makes about as much sense as you asking me for an example of how I've never gone skydiving.

Well, if you think reality includes a same state past, let's have an example?

You stated that you were asking me for an example of whatever I was talking about. Despite the fact I was asking you a question, not making a claim that required an example to back it up.

So you make no claims??

Since you had apparently forgotten what we were talking about (as well as Iforgotten that I was asking you a question which required an answer from you, not an example from me), I asked why you were so forgetful.

Maybe try to say something memorable? Concise and clear would be a bonus too

You then appeared to be unaware that we were continuing a discussion that we had started earlier. Perhaps you thought that the conversation had just started in the middle?

Be less long winded, and talk as if people just tuned into a radio show and need to be brought up to speed often.

At this point I concluded that no one could actually be that stupid, and started playing around. If you really are that absent minded, I apologize (and I admit that it would explain a great many things about your posts).

You going on about banter as if it was ancient history explains something of yours.

Do you think that investigation of the real world is a good way to learn about the aspects of the real world that we are currently ignorant of?

Define real world?? It sounds nice, like motherhood and apple pie

No they aren't. They are independantly testable, and HAVE been tested and verified.

Example of something independently verified and tested??

 

[Davian]

Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?

No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.

If you can't put it in the form of a hypothesis it just looks like more arm waving.

Perhaps you should put the bible aside and just use external sources to support your views.

Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?

From a 'creator of the universe' perspective, I do wonder about the CMB radiation. Why all of that antimatter?

I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.

Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Yes. Nothing is real old.

So you claim.

Science can't hypothesize about what it knows not of.

That's why you have to do it.

YOU move it!!

You are the one playing bible in the science forum, not me.

The bible has the God exclusive. Get used to it. No getting away from it.

A God Exclusive! Film at 11!

They can't be falsified. Can they? Say how?

That's what you are going to do when you put that hypothesis together. Show em how they got it wrong. Propose an alternate interpretation for the data based on the same observations. You will have to back it up with facts, though.

"All" the antimatter? Where? In space? Seems they can't quite find it yet...right?

It's a long story. After the initial expansion of the cosmos... you do know what CMB stands for, don't you?

Yoiu do that fine by failing to support your own. No worries.

It is not known. So Science doesn't know. It is against the truth of God. So I know it is false. Prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong about what? You never showed me how the bible said the earth could not be billions of years old. What difference would it make?

 

[VehementiDominus]

Oh...OK. I have to agree with that. Science that is worth it's salt agrees with God.

I heared about this before, whassit called?

Con- something... con... fer... confermashun... confermation... confirmation bias! That's it! Confirmation bias!

Yeah, it's one of those logical fallacies you want to look out for. They're pretty bad.

 

[Tiberius]

All you got to do is get the far universe in that reality and the far past. Then you might be onto something.

What in the world are you talking about?

True. For those that are ignorant.

For once we agree.

You can't. Man is too small.

rubbish. If it wasn't for investigations of the real world, we wouldn't have that computer you are using, or medicine, or even fire.

Well, whatever I was responding to I don't remember. Probably some glib claim that man wants to do great things and know a lot...yada yada..

What the...? You claim you don't know, despite the fact that I posted a link to the exact post! You do know how to click on a link, doncha?

Your range of investigative powers is too limited to challenge God's past.

I was asking YOU, dad. My powers of investigation have nothing to do with it.

Well, if you think reality includes a same state past, let's have an example?

Stop twisting what I am saying. I asked you if you thought that investigation of the world could give us knowledge about the world, and then you asked me for an example. How am I meant to provide an example of your thoughts on the topic?

So you make no claims??

If I ask you a question, that is very different to me making a claim.

Do you understand English grammar, dad?

Maybe try to say something memorable? Concise and clear would be a bonus too

I am clear and concise. I would say that it is the person who has trouble with the differences between questions and statements that has trouble with clarity.

Be less long winded, and talk as if people just tuned into a radio show and need to be brought up to speed often.

Don'ty blame me for your pitiful attention span. Perhaps if it was longer you;d actually be able to learn something.

You going on about banter as if it was ancient history explains something of yours.

Ah, this is nice. You ask me what I am talking about after you have a bout of forgetfullness, and then you insult me when I provide an answer.

Define real world?? It sounds nice, like motherhood and apple pie

It's the actual physical world/universe.

What do you think it is?

[/quote]Example of something independently verified and tested??[/QUOTE]

Pretty much all of biology.

The list of things that have been verified and tested independantly does NOT include anything of yours.

 

[Mikecpking]

Its ok Tiberius, Dad never answwered any of my requests to back up his statements when he can 'prove' science wrong.

 

[dad]

So you claim.

Prove otherwise.

That's why you have to do it.

So you think I have to do what science can't? I agree, it seems easy enough. I think man has a brain. Add the word of God to that, and poor science is left in the dirt.

You are the one playing bible in the science forum, not me.

Guess that means you can't comment intelligently on the book that sets the year of man!

That's what you are going to do when you put that hypothesis together. Show em how they got it wrong. Propose an alternate interpretation for the data based on the same observations. You will have to back it up with facts, though.

No. Your criteria ain't mine. I have to do nothing of the sort. Losers like so called science merit no further wasted time.

It's a long story. After the initial expansion of the cosmos... you do know what CMB stands for, don't you?

In the evo fables? Of course. There was no expansion of the cosmos. Look for another explanation for the creation radiation remnant!

Prove you wrong about what? You never showed me how the bible said the earth could not be billions of years old. What difference would it make?

Being made in 6 days, or 12 mornings and evenings means that it was made in a week. That's how.

 

[dad]

Its ok Tiberius, Dad never answwered any of my requests to back up his statements when he can 'prove' science wrong.

Already proven. The lack of proof serves as defacto proof of failure.

 

[dad]

I heared about this before, whassit called?

Con- something... con... fer... confermashun... confermation... confirmation bias! That's it! Confirmation bias!

Yeah, it's one of those logical fallacies you want to look out for. They're pretty bad.

God is confirmed. The bias is in denial.

 

[dad]

What in the world are you talking about?

If you claim reality and want to apply it to the unknown far past, you need to be able to know what reality existed then. Not now..

rubbish. If it wasn't for investigations of the real world, we wouldn't have that computer you are using, or medicine, or even fire.

Please prove where fire came from? You thought it was modern science!!!!??? Medicine? So science gave the medicine men their bones and whatnot? Computer? That has what to do with creation? What, Adam had an Apple while Eve played with her Blackberry??

What the...? You claim you don't know, despite the fact that I posted a link to the exact post! You do know how to click on a link, doncha?

Hey. Just post the words here and now. Scared?

I was asking YOU, dad. My powers of investigation have nothing to do with it.

I agree. Your powers to investigate the far past are nil.

Stop twisting what I am saying. I asked you if you thought that investigation of the world could give us knowledge about the world, and then you asked me for an example. How am I meant to provide an example of your thoughts on the topic?

What imaginary investigation of the world did you have in mind? What world? The world that was? Or the world that is?? Stop dancing like you can't make it to the little boy's room.

If I ask you a question, that is very different to me making a claim.

So you have no claims? Just questions? Well, at least ask it.

Do you understand English grammar, dad?

Yes. Why? Got some?

I am clear and concise. I would say that it is the person who has trouble with the differences between questions and statements that has trouble with clarity.

So what are you clear about, besides useless blathering on about nothing?

Don'ty blame me for your pitiful attention span. Perhaps if it was longer you;d actually be able to learn something.

It is long enough to read this. You said nothing again.

Ah, this is nice. You ask me what I am talking about after you have a bout of forgetfullness, and then you insult me when I provide an answer.

So you gave an answer?? Keep us posted. The answer was to what question, and what was the answer? Or do you prefer to just blah and blah and blah?

It's the actual physical world/universe.

Ha!!!!!!! THAT is what you thought reality in the future and far past was!!!???

What do you think it is?

It is? As in...where and when? On earth, now? Be clear.

Pretty much all of biology.

OK. So can you relate some of that to the creation era??

The list of things that have been verified and tested independantly does NOT include anything of yours.

Name a few things that have then!?? Especially that relate to creation? Gotcha.

 

[Tiberius]

If you claim reality and want to apply it to the unknown far past, you need to be able to know what reality existed then. Not now..

And if what we find is that everything in the universe is explainable by having the laws of nature being the same everywhere at all times, then that is the explanation we should go with.

Please prove where fire came from? You thought it was modern science!!!!??? Medicine? So science gave the medicine men their bones and whatnot? Computer? That has what to do with creation? What, Adam had an Apple while Eve played with her Blackberry??

I said investigation of the world, not modern science. Read what I write.

Of course, your inability to read things properly would explain a great deal.

Hey. Just post the words here and now. Scared?

Are you scared to click on a link?

I agree. Your powers to investigate the far past are nil.

Nah, they're not. They're quite good.

What imaginary investigation of the world did you have in mind? What world? The world that was? Or the world that is?? Stop dancing like you can't make it to the little boy's room.

The world that was and the world that are now are both one and the same.

Your claim that they are different is completely unsupported, and you have yet to provide support for it.

So you have no claims? Just questions? Well, at least ask it.

I already did. do you think that investigating the world is a good way to find out things about the world?

Yes. Why? Got some?

Why? because you seem to have difficulty in comprehending what I say.

So what are you clear about, besides useless blathering on about nothing?

I am clear in just about everything I write.

It is long enough to read this. You said nothing again.

I say plenty. Don't blame me for your inability to understand it.

Ha!!!!!!! THAT is what you thought reality in the future and far past was!!!???

That is indeed what the real world is.

Why? Do you live somewhere other than the real world?

OK. So can you relate some of that to the creation era??

There was no creation era.

Name a few things that have then!?? Especially that relate to creation? Gotcha.

There's your problem. You start with the assumption that the Bible is true.

 

[Davian]

Prove otherwise.

You have failed to provide a coherent argument to work with.

So you think I have to do what science can't? I agree, it seems easy enough. I think man has a brain. Add the word of God to that, and poor science is left in the dirt.

No, I do not think you can do it. But if you can't, then you have failed.

Guess that means you can't comment intelligently on the book that sets the year of man!

You have failed to point out which bible best supports your case. You have failed to demonstrate how it supports your date claims.

No. Your criteria ain't mine. I have to do nothing of the sort. Losers like so called science merit no further wasted time.

If you can't meet the criteria, you should stay in the theology forums.

In the evo fables? Of course. There was no expansion of the cosmos.

Another unsupported claim.

Look for another explanation for the creation radiation remnant!

Support your own claims.

Being made in 6 days, or 12 mornings and evenings means that it was made in a week. That's how.

I thought there was 7 days in a week? Silly bible.

 

[VehementiDominus]

God is confirmed. The bias is in denial.

Do you even know what confirmation bias is? Apparently not.

God is confirmed?

Really?



Evidence?

It's all very well to say God is confirmed, I can say the existence of Allah or Quetzalcoatl or Odin is confirmed. It means nothing unless you back it up - but then seeing as nothing you say ever seems to mean anything anyway, expecting you to provide the conclusive, empirical evidence that confirms God is asking a bit too much.

And don't say "The Bible!". That's not evidence anymore than the Koran is evidence of Allah.