Those "religious" people....

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Why do you have to have a 'where it came from'?
As stated before, why do science botherers even care how it started, if they're 'fine' with this unexplainable beginning. Isn't that the fundamental rant against the (misapplication) of the Bible's beginning story?
Again, double standard, without questioning the dogma.

Time did not exist before the big bang.
Not even a flicker of your eyebrow with that posting, but to think of a being who lives outside of time, outside of cause, well, that's a bit much.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

You try to say that science is 'obfuscatory', but I've always been told to sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity or prolixity.
As you should. However, just make sure you're using the words correctly. As prolixity pertains to length (as in too much), your insult falls a little short. The words I utilized were chosen on the basis of their directness, and thereby, brevity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You feel I'm condescending, and that's fine by me - you have your opinion and I have mine. I feel that you are unwilling to accept evidence when it is presented to you if it doesn't fit with your world view. I also feel that people who deliberately attempt to undermine science whilst also relying on it for the quality of life they enjoy are hypocritical.

What evidence, you have given me evidence? Opinion maybe, but
evidence, no. I can accept you having your opinion and I having
mine, I do not; however, go out of my way to belittle you while
you express yours, as you do me. I'm not going to bother bringing
it up again, even if you continue. I just wanted you to be aware
what you were doing incase this isn’t something you take pride in,
just incase this wasn’t your standard behavior in a discussion with
someone you don’t know. If it is how you conduct yourself, than it
is how you conduct yourself, I not overly concern about it.

Do you question opinions of others within science or do you accept
everything everyone tells you? Do you accept everything everyone
within science tells you is a fact, or do you want to be sure what is
being called a fact is a fact? Do you think you’re questioning some
part of the science is undermining all of "science" or just that part
you are questioning? If you want to call me hypocritical for my not
accepting everything I'm told, than fine I'm a hypocrite, I hope you
don't do what you accuse me of, and give yourself a pass while you
do it, because that would make you what?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What evidence, you have given me evidence? Opinion maybe, but
evidence, no. I can accept you having your opinion and I having
mine, I do not; however, go out of my way to belittle you while
you express yours, as you do me. I'm not going to bother bringing
it up again, even if you continue. I just wanted you to be aware
what you were doing incase this ...[text shortened]... ccuse me of, and give yourself a pass while you
do it, because that would make you what?
Kelly

Evidence.

Okay regarding the age of the earth that we touched upon in another thread. Many many studies have been done into this. They basically give the earth an age of between 4.45 and 4.53 billion years (Zhang, Y. 2002, Earth Science Reviews). Y. Zhang summerises the results of numerous studies using a veriety of techniques, namely I-Pu-Xe dating (Zhang, 1998, Allegre et al. 1995), U-Pb dating (Allegre et al. 1995, Galer & Goldstein, 1996), Hf-W dating (Lee & Halliday, 1996), Sm-Nd dating (Jacobsen & Harper, 1996), Detrital Zircon dating (Wilde et al. 2001) and Nb-Zr Dating (Munker et al. 2000). Also, the age of the moon falls at ~4.5 billion years (Lee et al. 1997).

I should say that the results of all these studies giving the same date would constitute evidence since they were all derived from calculations based on measurements conducted from real material in the real world. Hardly just 'opinion'.

I already knew you were going to use the whole 'do i have to believe everytig i'm told by scientists?' thing. The answer is, of course, no. You are under no obligation to believe anything. I do believe though that once something is proven multiple times independantly it is worthy of being taken seriously though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Evidence.

Okay regarding the age of the earth that we touched upon in another thread. Many many studies have been done into this. They basically give the earth an age of between 4.45 and 4.53 billion years (Zhang, Y. 2002, Earth Science Reviews). Y. Zhang summerises the results of numerous studies using a veriety of techniques, namely I-Pu-Xe dati ...[text shortened]... e something is proven multiple times independantly it is worthy of being taken seriously though.

The point isn't that you get the same answers through your processes,
but why? Does it mean what you say; it may not, your using faith in
what you think you know to accept something! I can take readings
electrically get an output, have that output go into a spread sheet, with
those readings I can calculate several things plotting them accordingly.
I have to know every detail of my setup at all times, what state each
and every piece of equipment I’m using is in, I have to know if I have
a device under test or not. If all I’m looking at is data points, that
doesn’t mean anything. If I don’t know every detail at all times, I
don’t know anything outside of figures popping up. I get readings if I
don’t have a part being tested (opens) and when I do, I get readings
if my parts are being tested at -5C or 110C, I get readings if my parts
are placed within the testers with pin one orientation correct or off 180
degrees making all the pin definitions off, at what time does certain
patterns go through the part so I can see the affects. It is not
different than I pointed out to you a little while back, simply having a
test that works here and now showing something we can verify by
setting up known states does not mean it will give the correct answers
when we push it beyond where we can verify our conditions. Just as
someone who can read something close without wearing glasses, does
not mean that they can read something far away. So when you do
take it beyond your abilities to control the setup where everything is
known, you have moved into the realm of belief and faith, you may
get the same answers, but maybe for reasons you have no idea
about. To claim you know your conclusions are correct is an opinion,
getting the same results is only getting the same results.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
To claim you know your conclusions are correct is an opinion,
getting the same results is only getting the same results.

You can cling to this, Kelly, but I don't find this 'opinion' thing to be
a very compelling argument. Why? Because not all opinions are equal.
I can opine that the moon is made of cheese in spite of all the evidence
to the contrary, but that doesn't give my opinion validity.

The repeated testings through different branches of science which lead to
concordant answers give an old-earth dating validity as an opinion which
allow people to call it a fact.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Why do you have to have a 'where it came from'?
As stated before, why do science botherers even care how it started, if they're 'fine' with this unexplainable beginning. Isn't that the fundamental rant against the (misapplication) of the Bible's beginning story?
Again, double standard, without questioning the dogma.

Time did not exis ...[text shortened]... , but to think of a being who lives outside of time, outside of cause, well, that's a bit much.

We have evidence of the Big bang, such as the univeral background radiation. We have no evidence of god that cannot be explained in other, less supernatural, more testable, ways.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You can cling to this, Kelly, but I don't find this 'opinion' thing to be
a very compelling argument. Why? Because not all opinions are equal.
I can opine that the moon is made of cheese in spite of all the evidence
to the contrary, but that doesn't give my opinion validity.

The repeated testings through different branches of science which lead t ...[text shortened]... ive an old-earth dating validity as an opinion which
allow people to call it a fact.

Nemesio

Compelling, maybe not, factual, I believe it is. Facts and opinions,
are not the same thing, and seeing a process produce the same
result only shows that the process produces the same result, what
that result means has all the issues I talked about before.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Compelling, maybe not, factual, I believe it is. Facts and opinions,
are not the same thing, and seeing a process produce the same
result only shows that the process produces the same result, what
that result means has all the issues I talked about before.
Kelly

That's well and good, but when it is multiple processes all giving the same result your objections fall apart.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That's well and good, but when it is multiple processes all giving the same result your objections fall apart.

I don't think so, it strenghtens your case, but does not slam it shut,
for all the reasons I gave above.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think so, it strenghtens your case, but does not slam it shut,
for all the reasons I gave above.
Kelly

If a dozen people independantly identified the same man as a bank robber you'd be pretty sure he did actually rob the bank, especially if every one of them pulled him out of a line up of 20 individuals. This despite there being a 0.012% chance of the individual being an identical twin (a 1 in 8659 chance)(http://www.nomotc.org/library/incidence.html#incidence%20table). You can never be 100% sure - no-one in science would ever claim that, but when you get to a position where there is a less than a 1 in 20 chance of any given result being by chance, you can be pretty sure of your case.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If a dozen people independantly identified the same man as a bank robber you'd be pretty sure he did actually rob the bank, especially if every one of them pulled him out of a line up of 20 individuals. This despite there being a 0.012% chance of the individual being an identical twin (a 1 in 8659 chance)(http://www.nomotc.org/library/incidence.html#i ...[text shortened]... than a 1 in 20 chance of any given result being by chance, you can be pretty sure of your case.

It is possible I'm wrong, I admit that! I am only saying that it isn't
slam shut, air tight, no room for error, without a doubt, a fact!

I've gone over the reasons why, and do not think you need to see
them again. The issues I have are that what is being suggested can
not be verified except through another test with all the same
limitations. If there are built in errors that they all share, you will
always get the same answers, that does not mean they are correct
in giving us true ages, it only means we get the same answers.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is possible I'm wrong, I admit that! I am only saying that it isn't
slam shut, air tight, no room for error, without a doubt, a fact!

I think this is fair, but the degree to which there is no room for error
is the important thing. If 20 different people who don't know each other all
finger the same guy, the likelihood that all 20 are wrong is pretty slim.
Sure it exists, but how useful is that infinitessimal possibility? Not very.

That's why the old-earth theory is really the only reasonable option. There
are several totally different and scientifically independent ways of testing that
the earth is ancient. The likelihood that all of them to be wrong is infinitessimally
small.

I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm just stating that it is highly improbable
that what you believe is true, whereas it is quite probable that the old-earth belief
is true.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think this is fair, but the degree to which there is no room for error
is the important thing. If 20 different people who don't know each other all
finger the same guy, the likelihood that all 20 are wrong is pretty slim.
Sure it exists, but how useful is that infinitessimal possibility? Not very.

That's why the old-earth theory is re ...[text shortened]... believe is true, whereas it is quite probable that the old-earth belief
is true.

Nemesio

Be it (called) an infinitesimal small possibility is an opinion, if the
earth is young it is factual, and that is that. If rates are measured
20 different ways by looking at 20 different materials, they could all
have the same built in errors, if there are other means of to come
up with the age, I'd have to think about them.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The point I am making is that whilst there is some speculative science, there is typically some reason for that speculation, whether it is in the form of a development of a theory from axioms (themselves normally based on measurable phenomenon, such as the Universal background radiation for the big bang) that is consistant with the universe as we percei ...[text shortened]... ce, but would not allow the changes that would be required for a 6,000 year old earth.

The point I am making is that whilst there is some speculative science, there is typically some reason for that speculation...

In the case of the "multiverse" theory, that reason is simple - to explain why the Universe has precisely those values of the Universal constants that allow life (not necessarily carbon-based) to exist. Nothing to do with empirical facts - just something to be an "alternative" to religion.

Indeed, even were it to be proven it would lead to revisions in our current science, but would not allow the changes that would be required for a 6,000 year old earth.

I think it would lead to more than just "revisions" in our current science; but I would be cautious about confidently asserting it would not be sufficient for a 6,000-year old earth.