"Real" ringworlds

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Loser:

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.

.

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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.

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.

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived

not seen is not the same as not percieved.

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

[Grandpa Kim]

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 ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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 )...

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

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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?

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.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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

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.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

...

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.

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.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Aloofi The Ignorant:
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?

.

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.