What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

Assumption: Gravity. If I drop a ball, it will hit the ground.
Test: Drop ball.

Assumption supported by test.

This simplistic example is really no different than any other scientific experiment, other than complexity.

oh. I see. It's more uniformity! If I can make one test work using assumptions, I must be right ALL the time.

 

[Guywiththehead]

From the thread Uniformitarianism:

The speed of light has changed in the past, somewhere between 12 billion years ago. Or at least the alpha changed a few parts in 10^15, which it's a valid simplifacation. But here's the thing, we can detect changes like that, and the change is nowhere near the rediculous amount needed for the universe to be as young as some say it is.

Why can we not detect the huge change in the speed of light and and the various other constants if we can detect a change as miniscule as that?

 

[nvxplorer]

oh. I see. It's more uniformity! If I can make one test work using assumptions, I must be right ALL the time.

Do you have a reason to believe gravity won’t hold you down? What about your car? Do you think the laws of physics will change, and your car won’t start? Do you trust that protein and sugar will give you sustenance? Will your lungs cease to process oxygen? Where does it end? Whether you admit it or not, you believe in uniformitarianism. Without such a belief, you would experience life from inside a padded cell. You are free to believe anything you want, but denying how your mind works, how you function in everyday life; to rationalize a preconceived notion of biblical accuracy, is irrational in my opinion.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Do you have a reason to believe gravity won’t hold you down? What about your car? Do you think the laws of physics will change, and your car won’t start? Do you trust that protein and sugar will give you sustenance? Will your lungs cease to process oxygen? Where does it end? Whether you admit it or not, you believe in uniformitarianism. Without such a belief, you would experience life from inside a padded cell. You are free to believe anything you want, but denying how your mind works, how you function in everyday life; to rationalize a preconceived notion of biblical accuracy, is irrational in my opinion.

you are just listing more examples of the same thing. Stuff that you have tested out. Sure, some things work the same all the time. But, like I said, to assume because you are right on these, that you are right on everything, is a joke.

uniformity depends on systems always being the same, however. Do I have reason to believe gravity won't hold me down? no. What about in an anti grav chamber? well then, yes. If you change the parameters, the outcome may change. Which, is why I don't believe in uniformity. You believe that things never changed, or at least not enough to affect the rates at which we see things happen today. I disagree.

 

[TeddyKGB]

oh. I see. It's more uniformity! If I can make one test work using assumptions, I must be right ALL the time.

You are welcome to provide the methodology by which your non-uniformitarian physical world operates. Be sure to include how you choose the values (among the infinite number of combinations available) that go into your model.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You are welcome to provide the methodology by which your non-uniformitarian physical world operates. Be sure to include how you choose the values (among the infinite number of combinations available) that go into your model.

are you missing my point? If there are infinite number of combinations, how could I know? How could you? I don't make those assumptions. YOU do.

 

[TeddyKGB]

are you missing my point? If there are infinite number of combinations, how could I know? How could you? I don't make those assumptions. YOU do.

Then why do you keep saying the world "looks" young?

You get your Earth-age straight out of a book (actually, from a man who decided he should be the one to tell everyone else how to read the book), you have not the first clue how to structure a physical model to make your Earth-age workable, yet somehow the world "looks" young.

If you would just drop the doublespeak - admit that you believe Ussher no matter what the appearance of the Earth suggests - this would be a lot less frustrating.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then why do you keep saying the world "looks" young?

You get your Earth-age straight out of a book (actually, from a man who decided he should be the one to tell everyone else how to read the book), you have not the first clue how to structure a physical model to make your Earth-age workable, yet somehow the world "looks" young.

If you would just drop the doublespeak - admit that you believe Ussher no matter what the appearance of the Earth suggests - this would be a lot less frustrating.

why does the opinion of someone you consider a fool frustrate you so?

I can make no admission, seeing as that is not how it happened with me. I was taught evolutionary theory and billion year earth before I was taught otherwise. I didn't believe it then. The world did not look old to me. A subjective observation, such as I have said numerous times. Your assertion that I believe the world looks young only because of Ussher is false.

 

[Guywiththehead]

As you so gracefully dodged the question, Uphill Battle, I will answer for you.

The only way that such a huge change could go undetected is that there's a vast conspiracy to suppress information about this change, which is clearly absurd, or the change never happened.

 

[Uphill Battle]

As you so gracefully dodged the question, Uphill Battle, I will answer for you.

The only way that such a huge change could go undetected is that there's a vast conspiracy to suppress information about this change, which is clearly absurd, or the change never happened.

funny how you speak of conspiracy. Isn't that what is accuse of all the people who have had a religious experiance? Millions have... so it can't be simple mistake, it would have to be hoax. The same thing you get your hackles up about. Funny that.

and I dodge no questions. I just don't pretend to have all the answers, like those who support TOE. talk about frustration, They are apparantly not human, as they are supposedly without error at all.

P.S. do NOT presume to answer for me please.

 

[nvxplorer]

you are just listing more examples of the same thing. Stuff that you have tested out. Sure, some things work the same all the time. But, like I said, to assume because you are right on these, that you are right on everything, is a joke.

This is shortsighted and incorrect. The universe operates under the laws of physics. Every other science operates under these laws. Chemistry, biology, geology. You cannot change one without changing the laws of physics. You cannot change geology without changing other aspects of reality. Either the laws have remained constant, or everything was different. You can’t pick and choose.

 

[Guywiththehead]

funny how you speak of conspiracy. Isn't that what is accuse of all the people who have had a religious experiance? Millions have... so it can't be simple mistake, it would have to be hoax. The same thing you get your hackles up about. Funny that.

Ah, changing the subject. Always a good way to evade admitting that you're wrong.

Just what kind of religious experience are you talking about? Perhaps you mean the kind you mentioned in the thread about the testimony of an ex-drunk that she felt and heard Jesus in General Apologetics? You were given explanations in that thread.

and I dodge no questions.

That's what not responding to a question is.

I just don't pretend to have all the answers, like those who support TOE.

No we do not. I see you're applying the "You people are mean! Why do you do [something that absolutely no one has even hinted at]" method of evading the question.

talk about frustration, They are apparantly not human, as they are supposedly without error at all.

See above.

P.S. do NOT presume to answer for me please.

Perhaps, if you and just about every YEC and Creationists in general didn't ignore every piece of evidence that you don't have even the poorest counter-argument to.

 

[nvxplorer]

funny how you speak of conspiracy. Isn't that what is accuse of all the people who have had a religious experiance? Millions have... so it can't be simple mistake, it would have to be hoax. The same thing you get your hackles up about. Funny that.

I don’t recall anyone denying religious experience. What these experiences indicate is up for debate, however. There is the additional problem of those whose religious claims contradict each other. Is it Jesus or Allah speaking to me? Who are the true infidels? Then there is the striking coincidence that religious experience conforms to one’s culture, time, and upbringing. Funny that indeed.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ah, changing the subject. Always a good way to evade admitting that you're wrong.

Just what kind of religious experience are you talking about? Perhaps you mean the kind you mentioned in the thread about the testimony of an ex-drunk that she felt and heard Jesus in General Apologetics? You were given explanations in that thread.



That's what not responding to a question is.



No we do not. I see you're applying the "You people are mean! Why do you do [something that absolutely no one has even hinted at]" method of evading the question.



See above.



Perhaps, if you and just about every YEC and Creationists in general didn't ignore every piece of evidence that you don't have even the poorest counter-argument to.

Not believing the evidence points to what you claim it does does NOT mean it is ignored.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don’t recall anyone denying religious experience. What these experiences indicate is up for debate, however. There is the additional problem of those whose religious claims contradict each other. Is it Jesus or Allah speaking to me? Who are the true infidels? Then there is the striking coincidence that religious experience conforms to one’s culture, time, and upbringing. Funny that indeed.

as is everything, it would seem. I think it would be possible to find people who debate anything, as long as they are not in agreement with somebody in the other camp.

But wait one moment, isn't it odd, how the position "you know nothing about it" is always taken when a YEC disagrees with the evidences in this world for age of earth, yet we are supposed to believe you share the same level of understanding of the spiritual? You claim that we deny the evidence, so we can't know what we are talking about... why such strenous complaints if we accuse someone who denies the supernatural as having any idea how it does or does not work? Just a question.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is shortsighted and incorrect. The universe operates under the laws of physics. Every other science operates under these laws. Chemistry, biology, geology. You cannot change one without changing the laws of physics. You cannot change geology without changing other aspects of reality. Either the laws have remained constant, or everything was different. You can’t pick and choose.

really? I never proposed to pick and choose. I just said that I don't believe that everything in this earth always worked like it does now. You make an awful leap to assume that I meant nothing does.

 

[Beastt]

why does the opinion of someone you consider a fool frustrate you so?

I can make no admission, seeing as that is not how it happened with me. I was taught evolutionary theory and billion year earth before I was taught otherwise. I didn't believe it then. The world did not look old to me. A subjective observation, such as I have said numerous times. Your assertion that I believe the world looks young only because of Ussher is false.

How the world looks to you is meaningless... even to you. If you have no idea what an old Earth looks like and no idea what a young Earth looks like, then the age becomes completely irrelevant. You might as well be telling me the Earth looks "spark" in your subjective analysis. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Uphill Battle]

How the world looks to you is meaningless... even to you. If you have no idea what an old Earth looks like and no idea what a young Earth looks like, then the age becomes completely irrelevant. You might as well be telling me the Earth looks "spark" in your subjective analysis. It doesn't mean anything.

It really does baffle you, doesn't it? That somebody didn't believe the tenets of evolution BEFORE they even heard about YEC? doesn't it?

 

[nvxplorer]

as is everything, it would seem. I think it would be possible to find people who debate anything, as long as they are not in agreement with somebody in the other camp.

But wait one moment, isn't it odd, how the position "you know nothing about it" is always taken when a YEC disagrees with the evidences in this world for age of earth, yet we are supposed to believe you share the same level of understanding of the spiritual? You claim that we deny the evidence, so we can't know what we are talking about... why such strenous complaints if we accuse someone who denies the supernatural as having any idea how it does or does not work? Just a question.

What does one have to do with the other? Spirituality and science are unrelated.

Here are the relevant questions.

What is the universal description of the spiritual? How can it be demonstrated?

As I alluded to previously, are opinions based on a legitimate spiritual experience, or are they the product of a book, culture, time and upbringing?

 

[nvxplorer]

really? I never proposed to pick and choose. I just said that I don't believe that everything in this earth always worked like it does now. You make an awful leap to assume that I meant nothing does.

You do indeed pick and choose. Without appealing to magic, you cannot claim that certain constants were different while others remained the same. Changing any one constant would affect reality. The movement of plates, for example, is subject to the laws of physics - gravity, motion, force, etc. These laws would have to have been different to arrive at a present day earth in 6000 years time. Changing these laws would effect the entire universe. I don’t know if it is even possible to set up a model to accomodate such an idea, but doing so would be completely arbitrary and meaningless. If a model is possible, we could arbitrarily formulate laws to support any age. Why would a 6000 year model be any more credible than a 100 billion year model?