The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[ianw16]

No one cares what is believed. Show us a scientist that understands the data, and we can rake him or her over the coals here.

Why not have a look in the scientific literature? And I doubt you understand enough about science to engage in a meaningful discussion with a scientist.

 

[ianw16]

Abraham? They say he likely lived and was a young lad when Noah was still alive.

Date?

 

[ianw16]

Ah, bingo! You thought you knew distances...unless that were true all is lost for your case! I say you do not know them. Knowing distance depends on knowing time all the way there.

And time does not vary. So you have no argument. If you do, just post a link to the paper explaining it. You are batting zero here, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[ianw16]

So, ignorance is pleaded again. OK. You would need to show that space and time are the same way out there, to achieve any correlation with GR. Merely seeing shifted light when something gets near something else does not tell us GR did it!

Yes it does, and there is no scientific argument to counter that. Still batting zero. Where is the science? Still waiting. Your personal assertions based on ignorance and primitive beliefs are worth squat.

 

[ianw16]

Sometimes some people have rather unique ideas, such as the ever present one here on this site about how magnetic fields are important in galaxies

Indeed. And when asked to provide the maths for how these trifling magnetic fields move stars about, they tend to disappear! Justatruthseeker being a case in point.

 

[ianw16]

The sun standing still was felt physically by those living in that little area or at least fighting in a little area one day.

Primitive fairy tale. No evidence, nor mechanism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The answer is not absolutely nothing, the answer is absolutely everything.

The Technology we have today and that we use trillions of times per day as a species is a testament to said technology being real. That technology was born from scientific principles that again are reaffirmed every day over and over again...

So, when a group tries to use said principles and technology to explain the unknown, their postulations, hypotheses, theories, etc are going to have some credence to them.

I will 100% agree that cosmology models have some fairie dust in them, sure... If you look at the history of science, this has happened plenty of times-- one example that comes to mind is the plum pudding model for atomic theory. We now know that model was completely wrong however the model was disproved by using the scientific method and it helped lead us to better more accurate models.

I feel that cosmology is similar, they will keep modeling the universe using the principles we have learned on Earth and they will refine the model every time things are proved or disproved... eventually they will build more accurate models.

but in the mean time, meh, I'm not ready to completely through the baby out with the bath water and declare that the universe is not billions of years old...

A thousand times, this.

Yes. Scientific progress is NOT about declaring things "true". It is about zero-ing in on what is actually true. And for lots of things, we'll never get to the "absolute true". Or worse: we might actually land there, and have no way to find out.


That's fine. That's just how it is. We have no other choice. It is... the best we can do.

 

[Mountainmike]

And therein lies the difference between science and pseudoscience. Well, one of them, anyway. Scientific theories are never written in stone. There is always the chance of new observations changing the model. Fine. Science is not a religion. It is not written in stone, nor does it require faith. Both religion and pseudoscience require zero science, zero evidence, and a lot of faith.

At least you accept science is just an observation model. Which inevitably changes, and is therefore not a fundamental explanation of anything. No shame in that. . Even Hawking finally realised it with his concept of "model dependent reality" , the deathknell for the "theory of everything" when you realise the model describe what the world does, not what it is - and that it is not even a unique model, nor can a single model ever account for it.

Indeed it models what we observe through the narrow aperture of our sense projection, not what really "exists". The present model clearly has serious problems since it has massive discrepancies in mass and energy.

Bottom line is . Science used for harnessing effects we see in the world is a valuable tool.

Thats not how atheists often use it. More often on such as this forum it is completely misused as a crutch for philosophy of existence is a religion! (And a mighty poor one at that.

Take - It leads to misuse of fundamental terms like claiming "abiogenesis" is other than pure conjecture without evidence - ie faith based. (some wrongly use the words hypothesis or theory ) Where in reality abiogenesis is a name for a gaping hole in an a priori conjecture that "life is a biochemical accident, consciousness a chemical process" - the atheist mantra, they keep repeating in the hope they can believe it!

The world is all together more mysterious and laughs at mans petty intellect and the arrogance of some to think they "understand" it, or that no other explanation is needed for what and why it is. Sadly that arrogance can be the destruction of us - as Jurassic park in its own way hinted.

And a lady foretold in 1917 but nobody listened....we are now 100 years on. Expect the worst.

 

[ianw16]

Take - It leads to misuse of fundamental terms like claiming "abiogenesis" is other than pure conjecture without evidence - ie faith based. (some wrongly use the words hypothesis or theory ) Where in reality abiogenesis is a name for a gaping hole in an a priori conjecture that "life is a biochemical accident, consciousness a chemical process" - the atheist mantra, they keep repeating in the hope they can believe it!

It is far more believable, and sensible, than 'God did it.'!

 

[dad]

I've explained more than once how our notions of distances and space and time are based on observation and inference, but it appears you still don't have the foggiest notion of this stuff.

Observing something unfold in our time and space is observation. Fishbowl observation. It tells us nothing of space and time far away, as you have been told.

 

[dad]

Why not have a look in the scientific literature? And I doubt you understand enough about science to engage in a meaningful discussion with a scientist.

I actually understand more than enough to make mincemeat out of their ideas and fables and beliefs and foolish misconceptions.

 

[dad]

Date?

While there is some relatively small differences in accounts allowing for some interpretive error of some decades, here is one account from Israeli tradition.

"Abraham (who was first called Abram) was born in the year 1948 after Creation (1813 BCE). .."
"Abraham was the tenth generation removed from Noah, being a direct descendant of Shem, (Noah's son), the father of all the "Semitic" peoples. When Abraham was born, Shem was 390 years Old, and his father Noah was 892 years old, Abraham was 58 years old when Noah died, and 110 years old when Shem died. "

..Abraham's Early Life

 

[ianw16]

I actually understand more than enough to make mincemeat out of their ideas and fables and beliefs and foolish misconceptions.

No, you obviously don't. And you have not got one iota of evidence for your nonsense, let alone a mechanism.

 

[ianw16]

While there is some relatively small differences in accounts allowing for some interpretive error of some decades, here is one account from Israeli tradition.

"Abraham (who was first called Abram) was born in the year 1948 after Creation (1813 BCE). .."
"Abraham was the tenth generation removed from Noah, being a direct descendant of Shem, (Noah's son), the father of all the "Semitic" peoples. When Abraham was born, Shem was 390 years Old, and his father Noah was 892 years old, Abraham was 58 years old when Noah died, and 110 years old when Shem died. "

..Abraham's Early Life

Primitive, superstitious woo. And we have DNA older than that.

 

[ianw16]

Observing something unfold in our time and space is observation. Fishbowl observation. It tells us nothing of space and time far away, as you have been told.

No, we haven't been told. Where is the link to this claim? As far as I can see, it is just the untutored ramblings of an unqualified amateur on a forum. Got anything else?

 

[Mountainmike]

It is far more believable, and sensible, than 'God did it.'!

Wrong

On the basis of EVIDENCE you claim to support, there is NONE for either the fact of or any end to end process of abiogenesis (spare me the protein chemistry - evidence of bricks, is not evidence of self building houses ). So belief in abiogenesis is just that. Pure belief "confidence in absence of evidence". I might even share it , but as a scientist I accept it for what it is. belief.

There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread. So on the evidence war abiogenesis loses hands down. Ditto on other phenomena with theistic overtones, but this is not the place to discuss them, and when I tried - literally not a single atheist produced any valid objection on basis of evidence.
As always with scientific ratiolalist atheists, and sceptics - they were long on pseudoscience, woefully short on scientific reason or evidence.

Not surprising really. The pseudoscientist creed "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is not science, and allows the bar tobe raised against anything they dont "like" and lowered to anything they do like, like abiogenessis for example.

 

[ianw16]

There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread.

Nope, that is pure fiction. Made up woo.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Observing something unfold in our time and space is observation. Fishbowl observation. It tells us nothing of space and time far away, as you have been told.

And I've explained how the evidence says you're mistaken. If you have contradictory evidence, or a reasoned argument to support your claim, by all means present it.

 

[dad]

No, you obviously don't. And you have not got one iota of evidence for your nonsense, let alone a mechanism.

Why would I need a mechanism for you to be able to support your own claims of a certain nature in the past?

 

[dad]

And I've explained how the evidence says you're mistaken. If you have contradictory evidence, or a reasoned argument to support your claim, by all means present it.

Not sure why you think I need evidence for what you don't know. Space, and what is it out there? Time...same question? What else is out there you can't see? Will you admit if time were not the same no distances can be known for deep space?