Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. (link)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world. Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point. Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach. This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps I should have elaborated more. It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it was my third in this thread. I encourage everyone who can to go back a few pages and give my other Posts, one of which was very essay-like, a read. While you all are back there, catch up on the thread as a whole. This is the sort of thread that can revisit issues.

Perhaps you should say "essay before Last"... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.

Crack-science serves only to line the pocketbooks of crack-scientists. If I found out that my tax dollars were paying the bills for some clipboard jockey filing reports on something that Science has proven (really, really proven) will not work I would not be pleased. I might write a letter. I might just vote. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I like 'In the beginning, dirt.'! That pretty much sums up a health secular outlook.

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.

[edited for lag]

[ May 19, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So I see I failed to get through to you on the explaination of the term "faith" in the Last debates on these issues... should I go dig up those Posts again? You are using the wrong connotations of faith in the wrong place here...

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.

There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.

Of course, the High Priests of the new religion wants you to abandon the ways of the old religion.

Just like every time before.

That's why I embrace technology, but not that cult called Science

[ May 19, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Well, sometimes one just have to laugh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(Please continue the discussion, I find it very interesting but I can't make such good quality Posts as you guys have been producing, from both sides.
Some are also quite humurous (No disrespect).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you will read back a few Posts, I was responding to a remark that could be paraphrased as "the creationist community is dogmatic while the evolutionist community isn't" <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it isn't. Strictly speaking, nothing about the past can be proven. At best, evidence is either "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events; further, evidence can be (in)consistent with multiple tails. This is why juries are instructed to rule based on reasonable doubt rather than just doubt. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, there would be a decided lack of transitional structures (e.g., you could find scales, quills, and feathers, but you wouldn't find scathers, scquiles, or quithers (stuff halfway in between) - everything would either be functional or decay from something that was functional) in both the fossil record and modern critters.

Some of the Creation-related Biblical stories would leave footprints - the Flood, for example, has a few things it would leave behind, such as Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (there are witnesses to it, and satelite photos of an anomily that would fit the description) and evidence of a large water cataclysm (a Biblical explanation of the fossil record, also a good explanation for the smoothness of modern coal, trans-strata petrified trees, and a few other things).

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aloofi, if you would go back, in this thread, and read my first massive post, I would look forward to reading your reply to my description of the differences between Science and Religion.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Jack:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... no. I think I will have to enlighten some of you with the actual meanings of faith from older debates here... but I must get to class, so I will do so later.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )...

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Jack:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not another one of these arguments from ignorance... fossils are extremely rare. Only a very very small number of organisms ever get fossilized. The chances of a member of all species to have ever existed being fossilized are negligible. We are extremely lucky to have the fossils that we do.

All:
I have not yet seen anyone post a rational argument for Creationism (or something else that defies evolution and scientific origins theories). All you have done is post (often wrong) minor details/inconsistences and such with evolution and origin theories. This is no way to hold a rational debate. You need to present your side of the argument. So are you up to it? Can you post a good argument?

The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theory (simply spurting out Creationism is not a theory, but a hypothesis).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

you want proof, try faith. it can't work any other way.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Fyron:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I know that I'm an ignorant, but I think I have an idea of how that works. They claim that some type of rocks from some kind of stratus have certain age, but is purely especulative, based in that the deeper the oldest, or something like that. It gives me headache in my ignorant head, so I'm not really interested in knowing all the details, other than to critize it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So yeah, I'm guilty, I made my mind years ago.
Science is a cult.
Scientists are the new priests.
And I'm a very proud ignorant.
Will they burn me in the stake for heresy?

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

and the bible intructs us to try what it says. so obviously that guy, at least, was confident he had proof.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Arrg.... post lag.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is not about believing in things that you could find. Faith is about believing in things that cannot be proven. Faith is about those things that are out of Science's league: the value of a man, life after death, the existence of a supreme being. Faith is not proof. Faith is what you use when proof is not possible, not when it simply is not available. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are not telling me about footprints to look for. You are pointing at things we already know about and tying them into your theory.
Tell me about something we will find. When we find it, it will be proof (not perfect proof, but proof). If we don't find it, you will not be penalized. If we find that it is not possible, your theory will require revision.

I tell you we will find transitional specimens. 'We haven't found them yet' does not disprove evolution, but finding them is the test of it, always has been. Please read, again, my first unreasonably large post.

And dependence on eyewitness reports is unacceptable. If it is real, bring in consistent evidence. Those satellite photos over Turkey have not been reproduced. Yes, it looks like there's something there. It also looked like there was a face on Mars. We checked closer. It's a hill. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh my. In response to this I must speak the most terrible thing I could ever say to another speaking creature.

Bah.

This is the path of desperation. Strictly speaking you can never prove anything. Try proving the existence of time. We have all this evidence, but we have to start with a belief in the past in order to test and prove that time exists. That one hurts me in special places.

Yes, historical theories are difficult to prove, but we not actually sure about gravity either. It's possible that we are completely misunderstanding the mechanics of it. But it is darn good enough to accept as fact. And evolution can get 'good enough' as well. Eventually we'll see it happen anyway.

And with that unnecessarily personal comment, I am offically stepping out of this thread for the day.

Stay turned to this channel for Fyron's lecture on Faith. I know I will.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Narf.... I just don't know what to say. I have no idea what's going on in there, and I've had that same problem with your previous Posts.

Not that I'm complaining, they've led us to a very interesting place. But you've got to be the highest Creationist I know.

Now, it's also possible that I've been missing something very simple, something that would make complete sense of everything you've said. If this is the case, I apologise.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

My problem with Science is that they have stolen the technology from us, they have mixed their especulations with proven technology to give credit to their nonsense.
Some people have come as far as to tell me that I can't be a technology buff while renegating of science, like if the two of them were the same thing.
I have no problem with calculating the distance to an star, but why in the world we have to especulate about the AGE of that star when that can't be proven and that is irrelevant?

.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who says time exists?
Time is nothing more than the succesion of events.
You can't go back, you can't go forward.
It doesn't exist.
But it impress us, so we think it exists.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and what's wrong with that? if you find an apple on the ground and a bunch in a tree above, even if you don't know about gravity you can still make it up and say the apple fell.

and fyron said that ancient religious figures where making statements that couldn't be proven. that guy seemed sure they could.

and things found in faith can be tried to see if they work in life. i've done it. and, fyron, if moses was shown all of god's works, he knew about things that make quantum physics small. of course, it requires faith to believe that moses was shown that, but if you exercise faith enough.
faith is a working bootstrap. i've seen it work.

time, like space and many other things, can only really be observed by it's affects. why you have to have faith that your not crazy. even if you take a little chance, your either having faith or desperation.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">not seen is not the same as not percieved.

[ May 19, 2003, 21:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

The universe was created 5 minutes ago! Complete with your "memories" and "evidence" that the universe is billions of years old.

This Creationist Theory is as good as any other creationist theory; all it requires is faith.

Science deals not with faith, but with what we can see and touch and measure. The key word being "we". Other, more omnipotent beings may have other means. Meanwhile we muddle along with what the human brain and mind can deal with. Evidence is there and we have the capacity to learn much of it. Was it put there to test our "faith"? Sorry, I don't buy that; my god holds himself to a higher moral standard. He is not a trickster out for a good bellylaugh watching the aimless searchings of lesser beings to see if they will keep the faith with absolutely no evidence. No, he has given us an immense mystery and the tools to solve it. Don't ask me why (yet), I'm just glad to be here.

[ May 19, 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On what basis do you make this claim? There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment. Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence Edit: that is, when attempting to disprove something - I sometimes words in longer Posts, sorry) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration. You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ May 20, 2003, 00:29: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for. A valid counter-theory is only necessary if you want to throw the entire thing out. Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold, why should we specify the details of Creation we hold to? That would be a double standard, Fyron.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You right in that something not found yet doesn't proove it isn't there - but your statement that they will be found when they haven't been yet is a statement of faith as you yourself defined it. You seem to predict that we will find transitional structures; I predict that we won't. As none have been found yet, mine holds better at the moment.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. Those that try to dismiss isotopic dating are often ignorant of how it is actually used, and are not aware that all factors are taken into consideration. Yes, there are errors in the calculations. But, they are relatively small errors. The calculations are never meant to give 100% accurate results, but estimates.

The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.
Just a thought.

I now return you to your topic and me lurking in this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Rags:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure what exactly goes into calculating the age of a star, but I could easily find it. The age of a star is not accepted until a relatively large number of independant Groups study the star and calculate its age. So, it isn't just one guy doing all the math, it is a lot of people continually doubting each other and triple-checking all the work of others as well as their own work.

Jack:
I notice you have a tendency to not post counter-arguments, just to throw out various latin terms for things you perceive to be fallacies that may in fact not be fallacal (in fact, none of them actually approach being a fallacy, only your misconceptions about what was posted do). If you want to argue against points, you need to start posting more sound counter-arguments.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It isn't a "claim", it is a fact.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That just isn't true.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what is this "basic Creationist postulate"? You need to define things like that when you reference them...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nice argument technique, throwing around fancy latin terms in the hopes that you look smarter than me and so are automatcially correct. You should stop that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As you used the terms incorrectly, you are obviously confused as to their meanings.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is a good thing I didn't do that then. Creationism is not based off of rational argument, but off of divine revelation. This is what I said before. You just misinterpreted my meaning due to the wording of the post.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes it was! It was attacked from many sides by the scientific community.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the near past, which is closer to the present than the past you are attempting to attack it from, which is the origin of life. His theory most clearly did not address the origin of life.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they can be properly calibrated. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but with enough accuracy that the relative date is as good as it can get. I guess if you take a literal definition of "properly" to mean 100%, then your statement holds. But if you take a realistic approach to the problem, it does not. All of the calculations take the sources of error into account and minimize their effects quite well. Just because you are not a mathematician and don't understand how they work does not mean that they do not work.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fossil record provides some meagre support for evolution, and it throws out most forms of Creationism completely. Namely, those forms where a deity created all life on the planet as it should be. Extinction does not fit in with Creationism in general. Many Creationists try to compensate for this by saying that their deity created all of the fossils and such, but that is getting into extremely circular logic. Other forms of Creationism that allow for lifeforms to become extinct suffer the problem that eventually all lifeforms will die off, and nothing will be left alive. There is no evolution, after all. So, new species can't come to replace them. It is only when you allow for both a Creation and evolution that you can have a valid use of Creationism. Evolution certainly does not rule out the possibility of divine Creation because it NEVER addresses the origins of life, just how it changes now and in the distant past. I hope people will begin seeing these sentences I keep posting and realize that they are wrong when they try to say evolution is wrong because it doesn't fit in with Creation...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have not proposed a competing theory, which is the problem. Only pure, literal Creationism is a valid competition with evolution because evolution does not address the origins of life in any way shape or form. That is a whole other branch of biology. Creationism that only says "God created the universe and life" does not rule out the possibility of evolution at all. See above paragraph. So, pointing out some perceived flaws in evolution (some perceptions have been true, others false) does not make it wrong in this context, as you have not proposed any competing theory or hypothesis.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You just contradicted yourself.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is only one Version of evolution, and it does not address the origins of life at all. There are different implementations of it, different competing theories of what evolved from what, but they all use the same theory of evolution. I have not stated what origin theory I support because I am not going to get into that sort of argument with a Creationist. Arguing about that with a Creationist is like arguing with a wall; the Creationist can't be wrong, so no amount of argument and evidence would possibly have an effect. And, the origin of life is irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it wouldn't. There is one Version of evolution, and many Versions of Creationism.

I am no longer going to directly respond to arguments that clearly confuse evolution with origin theories. It is very tiring, and very unproductive. If you want to argue against evolution, stop mixing origin theories in with it.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Narf:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I said they were making guesses about the nature of reality based off of a distinct lack of information. They knew nothing of the actual mechanics of reality, and so their hypotheses were inherently flawed.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is about as circular as reasoning can get. You can not use something to prove itself.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was the point of saying that? It is irrelevant to the preceding quote. The meaning of the quote and the post following it is exactly the same. The semantics do not invalidate his point.

[ May 20, 2003, 00:34: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Ah, here is my "lecture" on faith (as someone put it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). It came about when someone accused me of being religious because I accepted that radio-carbon dating was relatively accurate enough to give accurate estimates. I am not trying to start up any old arguments, I am just posting this to help some people better understand how scientific and religious "faith" are wholely different concepts.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't get it. Why would a lightning not be an act of God? Yeah, its a transfer of electrons or something, so what?
You know, I think the problem here is the type of education recieved. I received a Jewish education, that says that every act that happens is an act of God, while it seems that in Christian/Western countries the concept of an act of God is diferent, like it have to be something unexplainable.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

You have to make basic assumptions, such as constant decay. Given the assumptions are true, you can measure the decay in a certain time, say 5 minutes. You can then extrapolate that back into the past. Or forward into the future.

The assumptions you make can affect the result. There is also some uncertanty in any measurement of a continuous scale, such as time or distance. Thats why results are often given a margin of error. You could say the rock is 500 years of plus or minus 1 day. Thats quite accurate. Or it could be 500 years plus or minus 1000 years. Thats very inaccurate. If the assumptions are false, then the result will be wrong. In many cases, the assumptions made are known to be false, but are made in order to make it easier to work out. If you read a real science paper in a proper journal, such as Nature or Science or whatever, there are always certain assumptions whether declared or not. Those assumptions are based on previous work, which had assumptions based on previous work, etc. Right back to basics. You have to trust other peoples work.

I do think this forum has a large amount of christian background in it. It would be very nice to get some non-christian viewpoints and discussion. I think its fair to say that the majority of people reading this thread are aged 20-40, christian (if any religion), white european (including americans), male, educated to a reasonable level (just below Bachelor on average), and american or european, but i could be wrong.

[editied to raise age range as corrected by Ruatha]

[ May 20, 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: Primogenitor ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Hmmm. Step out for ~24 hours, and there's a ton to respond to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I guess I'll just have to excerpt quotes from the Last three pages:

Fyron:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'll deal with most of this later. For now, suffice it to say that at best, this blurs the line between science (repeatable, observable experimentation) and educated guessing. At worst, it blurs the line between science and pick a theory. You cannot experiment on the past, so origin theories are outside of the realm of science.

Loser:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.

Fyron:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm assuming, again, that you're placing creationism on the same basis as evolution--that is, not as a theory of origins? Or are you comparing the two families of origins theory?

Loser:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron would tell you your analogy doesn't work because you're comparing two different things--historical theories and scientific theories. By definition, historical theories cannot be experimented on or repeated. In some cases, historical research (documents, interviews, etc) can be done, but I don't think that works too well for origin theories--the Big Bang doesn't accept interviews, and God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I want to argue about origins--stop mixing evolution in with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Why does every debate we have need to be about evolution? Why can't it be about origins? Maybe because one can't apply logic and science to it?

That's the big problem here. In effect, the evolution "side" of this argument says "Creationists, produce proof for your side." Since the supernatural is unproveable, the creationist platform is assumed to be proven false. Logic itself would dictate that unproveability does not equal falsehood, and that quantifiability does not equal superiority. They are two separate realms. Gotta run now--I will edit this post and finish my thoughts in an hour or so.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you are wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I'm not sure but this seems to indicate a wider range on the + side;
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...3;t=002107;p=1

[ May 20, 2003, 16:39: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can start with tree rings... One ring per year, match up the patterns of older trees with younger trees, to form a chain thousands of years back.

With a known age for an ancient fossilized tree, and the fixed decay rate of radioactive isotopes, you can find out the concentrations of the various isotopes in the biosphere at the time (It varies up and down).

With a curvy map of the isotope concentrations over time, and an unknown sample rock, you can find where the decay curve and the starting concentration curve intersect, giving you a date range.

Multiple samples and various statistical methods give you better certainty and accuracy.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aloofi, all of those factors are taken into account in the caclulations. The decay is not quite constant, and that is factored in. The average increases over time are factored in.

And what SJ said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one ever pretends to be able to experiment on the past. Scientific origin theories are based off of current observations, past observations, etc. No one has made any claims that they are absolute fact and there is no other possibility. That is what Creationists do, not scientists. Electron theory and quantum mechanics are our best guesses on how subatomic particles work. We can not experiment on them. Does that mean that those are out of the realm of science? Hardly. We can not experiment on stars, black holes, nebula, and other stellar phenomena. Does that mean that they are out of the realm of science? Certainly not.

The only people that have been lumping origins theories and evolution together are those that refuse to accept that their religious world view might not be entirely correct, so that they can dismiss them more easily.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">99.9% of ignorant people, yes. Weight of numbers for a belief by no means indicates that that belief is right. Again, astronomical theories can not be proven, as there would have been no observation. We can't see what other stars and such are actually like, just make guesses as to their nature based off of facts we do know and our observations. Much like evolution and origins theories. Hmm... anyone else see a connection? And before you say it, no, religious origins theories are not equivalent to scientific ones because they are not based off of logical reasoning and facts that we do know, they are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was asking for a counter theory to evolution. Other people have commited the fallacy of comparing evolution with the origins aspects of Creationism, but I have not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, logic can be applied to origins. You haven't applied any logic to your side of the argument. But that does not mean that it can not be done. Go do some research on philosophical works and you will see that there are numerous people that come up with logical arguments for or against any of the myriad of sides in this issue.

I do not keep "mixing evolution in with it". Most of this thread has been about evolution and not origins.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe you should take lessons in logic then. There are more ways to prove something than hard physical evidence. This is how things like origin theories can (though not all of them) fall under the realm of science.

[ May 20, 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I assume you mean something besides Christian and atheist? I would guess that the geographical make up of this forum is as much a cause for the dominance of those two beliefs as anything else is.

So, there you have it. If you're Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or Taoist or anything else, your input is needed. If your Christian or athiest, don't talk so much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 20, 2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Well I'm neither Christian nor Atheist, so I guess I get to keep talking as much as I want! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

I can talk too, I'm an agnostic.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, yes. In both cases, the observations made are very distant from the subject (whether in time or distance), and both are inordinately based on extrapolation of mathematical measurements and constants which may or may not be accurate--the length of time involved more or less ensures a lare margin of error for the results. Surely you don't put the results gleaned by astronomy on the same level as those from, say, botany or chemistry. Theoretical science has exploded in the past few decades, and it will take quite a bit of time for it to "settle out" and yield some hard facts, instead of just theoretical entities which currently only exist (to us) mathematically.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they don't hurt it any more than saying the Big Bang doesn't accept interviews hurts it. As for the intolerant elitist thing, I think the smiley was sufficient for that. Or would you prefer a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif instead of just a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ? The point was, there is no possible observation of the past and there is no one to interview who was there. Thus, the standard methods of verifying historical theories are unavailable.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I have taken lessons in logic. I can spot and spit out Bulverisms, ad hominems, and amphibolies right along side everyone else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I am aware of many of the various philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, the supernatural, and (for that matter) reason itself. Not one of those arguments is a proof for anything--at most, they are an intellectual diVersion which is picked up, toyed with, and set aside. We can experience and/or believe in any of those examples. We can, in some sense, observe reason, though this is a subjective, not objective, observation. The bottom line is, the ability to logically discuss something does not equal the ability to logically prove or disprove it.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">just becuase lightning is a transfer of electrons doesn't rule out god creating the lightning. if i throw a rock with a quantum cannon and you discover newtons laws, it doesn't rule out the quantum cannon. not to sure that quantum physics is right, though. just stating, don't want to start anothere debate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 pages for me

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no mortal observation. so, origin theory can be proven.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yup.

[ May 20, 2003, 23:52: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Narf:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

Krsqk:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am asking for something more than just trying to pick out every minor perceived flaw (most of them are based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of knowledge about the specifics of the reasoning behind the theory). It was not directed at you specifically, but at everyone that has been doing things like this.

And you are right, such things are not possible under ignore-all-the-evidence-around-us forms of Creationism. But there are other forms of Creationism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Blimey! I go away for a weekend and theres several pages to catch up on! Good work all!

One of the problems that i think a lot of people have with science stems is because there is so much of it. If you truly wanted, you coud go right back to basics and repeat everyhing. However, since that is very impractical, you have to trust ("have faith") that other peoples work is reliable and true. Scientists have been caught out before, and will be again.

What Darwin did was not evolution. It was a mechanism by which evolution worked. He was so afraid of ridicule for it that he spent most of his life ammasing evidence to prove it and only published when another guy (Russel or Alfred Wallace is think) had a similar idea while in a malarial coma!

You could say that both Evolution Theory (ies) and Creationist Theory (ies) are the products of evolution themselves. All that is needed for evolution is inheritance, variation, and natural selection. Most ideas/knowledge/concepts have these.
Inheritance is teaching others (verbally, writings, or forun threads!)
Variation is different interpretations (look at the types of christianity)
Natural selection is differential inheritance (norse relegion against christianity)

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god (Zeus et al). Since then significant evidence has accumulated that lighting is a trasnfer of electrons created by static electricity (I think, im open to correction). Most significant modern religions (I.e. most of the world population follow) would not say that lightning is an act of god (I think) (Though insurance companies might). This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.

And finaly...

Quote from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*LOL*

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I was trying to demonstrate that a theory can be valid without being provable. Assuming creation to be true, if God did give divine revelation about creation to someone to be written down, that doesn't mean He sent copies of the interview to everyone with a press credential. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif There would be no objective proof of the creation, but it would nonetheless have happened. That is just the way a supernatural event would be--it's nothing against logic; it just isn't subject to logical proof or disproof.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Sigh. I think you need to take some new philosophy classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

Narf, please go read my post on "faith"...

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

my original reply, which you replied to, was not to you. it was to that first qoute in my Last post

[ May 21, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds
 

It does not matter who it was directed at. You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.