"Real" ringworlds

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
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).

*LOL*

[Aloofi]

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god. 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.

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.

[Aloofi]

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. .

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?

[Primogenitor]

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 ]

[Krsqk]

Hmmm. Step out for ~24 hours, and there's a ton to respond to. I guess I'll just have to excerpt quotes from the Last three pages:

Fyron:

"Scientific origin hypothesis..." "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."

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:

"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..."

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:

"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)."

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:

"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."

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.

Fyron:

"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."

I want to argue about origins--stop mixing evolution in with it. 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.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
I think its fair to say that the majority of people reading this thread are aged 15-30

I think you are wrong

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 ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

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. .

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?

---

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.