Lets be serious:THERE IS NO GOD

Originally posted by mantawa
This has been covered before. 😉

Well if the assertion is 'God was never created or God has always been' then
why can't people assert that 'the universe was never created or the universe has
always been.'

You can say 'Well, God is defined as uncreated' and one could say 'Well, the universe
is defined as uncreated.'

It's a total impasse from any logical standpoint.

Nemesio

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I need to rant about the Anthropic Principal for a minute.

Overall the Anthropic Pricipal is just intellectually lazy. I and many other people I know find it disturbing. People, even some physicists are willing to basically say that they don't know how something works, so the Universe must therefore have been prepared for us by something, possibl ...[text shortened]... ic Principal like we do with things like LaMarkian Evolution.

Sorry for the rant, I am tired.

The "Anthropic Principle" seems to say to me; "If things were different, then things would be different but they aren't so it isn't."

What?

Originally posted by Twisbee101
Ok, someone help me.... i was thinking, when i was hearing arguments about stuff like this about something i was disscussing with my youth pastor. I'm a Christian, (so you know where I am coming from) and this is what it was:
all this about evolution, is about one benifit piling on top of another, while the weaker species fall away... so i thought, if y ...[text shortened]... ow, i will go by faith on the rest in God, and pair it with what i think i know, and understand.

You should definitely read The Book of Nothing by John D. Barrow and Surreal Numbers by D.E. Knuth

I am tired right now, but will talk about these books a bit more tomrrow and maybe make that John Snow post I mentioned.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Our ideas change, yes. As new data comes in we review our position - that's what makes science strong. The bible doesn't review, even when evidence is presented that doesn't reconcile with the bible. Look, I've defended science throughly, and indeed these arguments before. I can't be bothered to do it again, especially when you simply don't se ...[text shortened]... multiply verified streams of evidence. Why? Because it doesn't say so in your book? Come on!

The Bible does not review, agreed and it is also not a book of science
either. You either accept it or not, it isn't up for change or peer review.
To tinker with scripture is simply say it isn't trustworthy and that is
that. Either God did what it says or not.

With science it is always up for review that is its strenght, and it is also
its weakness too.

If you don't want to be bothered with me, so be it, don't be. I read
what it is you say, but if you want me to just buy into something
simply because you say, no that isn't going to happen. You want to
buy into odds being over come like I told you, you may, you want
to believe it happened over billions of years, believe it.
Kelly

How did you people let such an idiotic opening post lead to a serious discussion on the nature of existence?

You all had to get philo-mo-sophical...

You couldn't resist.
[b]
For shame!!

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Adjusting your position to make sense when new evidence shows up is just smart. Refusing to do so is what makes one's position weak. What people think about things today, when they look at and weigh all the evidence, seems a lot better than just listening to what people thought about things a few thousand years ago when lightning and clouds and rain ...[text shortened]... existed. Please explain this, or explain why you think we can just ignore observed facts here.

Again, facts are that we have fossils, rates do not mean that you
can look at something and know how far back in time will take you.
You may be right more times than not, but that doesn't mean that
you can prove it and know without a doubt what you think occured did
the way you believe. You cannot be proven wrong, you can only bring
a 2nd, a 3rd, and ... test that also shares the same limitations
your first has, meaning they too cannot be proven wrong. So your
dating methods all require your belief, your faith. Without the
millions/billions of years almost all commonly accepted thought on
the universe fall apart.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, facts are that we have fossils, rates do not mean that you
can look at something and know how far back in time will take you.
You may be right more times than not, but that doesn't mean that
you can prove it and know without a doubt what you think occured did
the way you believe. You cannot be proven wrong, you can only bring
a 2nd, a 3rd, and ...[text shortened]... lions/billions of years almost all commonly accepted thought on
the universe fall apart.
Kelly

Okay, I would agree with you if we were using only one data set from one place and applying only one technique to that material. But we don't. We use multiple data streams, using multiple techniques, which don't have the same assumptions. Likewise, you talk about changing rates; let me make this clear to you again THE RATES OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY DO NOT CHANGE. It is simple, it is proven and reproven and reproven again. Science's figure are an extrapolation from the data, yes, but the assumptions are all valid and have been proven unequivocally...

Facts are facts. You cannot deny them, as much as you try. Newsflash, the world isn't 6009 years old.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well if the assertion is 'God was never created or God has always been' then
why can't people assert that 'the universe was never created or the universe has
always been.'

You can say 'Well, God is defined as uncreated' and one could say 'Well, the universe
is defined as uncreated.'

It's a total impasse from any logical standpoint.

Nemesio

The truth is that Muffy made God.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, I would agree with you if we were using only one data set from one place and applying only one technique to that material. But we don't. We use multiple data streams, using multiple techniques, which don't have the same assumptions. Likewise, you talk about changing rates; let me make this clear to you again THE RATES OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY DO ...[text shortened]... e facts. You cannot deny them, as much as you try. Newsflash, the world isn't 6009 years old.

"THE RATES OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY DO NOT CHANGE"

As far as we can tell. This is all based on theories about how atomic particles work. We have fairly good theories that work on the macroscopic levels, but they start to break down at the microscopic levels. Basically - since we don't have any unifying theory that explains why we observe of the behavior of sub-atomic matter, we just don't know for sure. We don't know how gravity works, we don't know how magnetic energy works. And the as we seem to answer some questions, they lead to even more questions.

So we really DON"T KNOW if radioactive decay rates do not change. All we know is "according to the current models - radioactive rates of decay are constant". But since our observations are not exact enough to make the calculation - and since the theories can change overnight - we don't know. There no proof.

Einstein said it: we don't know anything.

Originally posted by Coletti
"THE RATES OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY DO NOT CHANGE"

As far as we can tell. This is all based on theories about how atomic particles work. We have fairly good theories that work on the macroscopic levels, but they start to break down at the microscopic levels. Basically - since we don't have any unifying theory that explains why we observe of the behavior ...[text shortened]... hange overnight - we don't know. There no proof.

Einstein said it: we don't know anything.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that would mean that the natural reactor at Oklo would have had to run within that time span.
I don't think that's possible.
I'm not a physicist however, not able to do the calculations about the change of rate of decay that would allow the reactor to run within that time and look as it does today but I suspect it would be really bizaare.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that would mean that the natural reactor at Oklo would have had to run within that time span.
I don't think that's possible.
I'm not a physicist however, not able to do the calculations about the change of rate of decay that would allow the reactor to run within that time and look as it does today but I suspect it would be really bizaare.

Still theoretical and based on the same theories. And it depends on the initial ratios of isotopes - which must be assumed before any calculations can be made. We've only been observing things like radioactive decay rates for what, 100 years? So we don't have a lot of old data compared to the timeframe we're talking about.

I think the calculations are fairly straight forward. I did them in college and it's not terribly difficult. But it still depends on theoretical models for setting the decay rate and the initial isotope ratios are a matter of question.

Originally posted by Coletti
Still theoretical and based on the same theories. And it depends on the initial ratios of isotopes - which must be assumed before any calculations can be made. We've only been observing things like radioactive decay rates for what, 100 years? So we don't have a lot of old data compared to the timeframe we're talking about.

I think the calculations a ...[text shortened]... tical models for setting the decay rate and the initial isotope ratios are a matter of question.

It's not just the decay rates, but the decay rates would have to vary widely for the reactor to run for a few thousand years instead of a few hundred thousand or even a million years, as it did.
For one thing, the energy release would have been too fast and violent.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
It's not just the decay rates, but the decay rates would have to vary widely for the reactor to run for a few thousand years instead of a few hundred thousand or even a million years, as it did.
For one thing, the energy release would have been too fast and violent.

But how do we know what the original ratios or isotopes were? This is an assumption. They found ratios that did not seem right. So they accounted for them by asserting that there must have been a fission reaction. Doesn't that tell you something? The facts do not point to an old earth. The facts should not point to anything at all. Only the interpretation of the facts can point at anything. In this case, they interpret the anomaly by theorizing about a natural fission reactor - something scientist would never had considered before 1972.

Originally posted by Coletti
But how do we know what the original ratios or isotopes were? This is an assumption. They found ratios that did not seem right. So they accounted for them by asserting that there must have been a fission reaction. Doesn't that tell you something? The facts do not point to an old earth. The facts should not point to anything at all. Only the interpret ...[text shortened]... ng about a natural fission reactor - something scientist would never had considered before 1972.

OK, OK, put your theory on paper and send it in, there's a Nobel Prize waiting ...

EDIT: I'm outta here.

Originally posted by Coletti
"THE RATES OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY DO NOT CHANGE"

As far as we can tell. This is all based on theories about how atomic particles work. We have fairly good theories that work on the macroscopic levels, but they start to break down at the microscopic levels. Basically - since we don't have any unifying theory that explains why we observe of the behavior ...[text shortened]... hange overnight - we don't know. There no proof.

Einstein said it: we don't know anything.

Actually, radioactive decay is pretty easy to do. We can do a pretty good analysis using, for example, 11C which has a half life of 20.4 minutes. Meaning that inside of an eight hour day you'll have 23 half lifes or 0.002% of the original amount. Pretty simple really. You want to test of on something a bit longer lived? How about iodine-131, half life - 8.07 days. A few weeks and you have your decay constants. So no, not really just theoretical. How do you think we came up with these theories on the first place???