"Real" ringworlds

[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.

[Fyron]

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?

---

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.

Krsqk:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ]

[Krsqk]

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 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.

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

[Fyron]

Well I'm neither Christian nor Atheist, so I guess I get to keep talking as much as I want!

[Ruatha]

I can talk too, I'm an agnostic.

[Krsqk]

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?

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.

...[religious origins theories] are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

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.

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.

quote:

---

God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions.

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.

---

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 instead of just a ? 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.

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.

Actually, I have taken lessons in logic. I can spot and spit out Bulverisms, ad hominems, and amphibolies right along side everyone else. 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.