Death_By_Pod

Ever heard of Abductive Reasoning?

If your not an expert and confess that you don't understand the dating methods, why do you still think they are wrong? Your accepting that the dating methods are inaccurate as fact without a shred of evidence for why. Even if you think they are inaccurate, you still accept that they are accurate beyond the ages described by young Earth creationism. You said "What i do know about optical dating is that it is not accurate whatsoever outside of 100,000 years.", however young earth creationism believes Earth is 6000 years old, not 100,000. Quantum mechanics is as theoretical as gravity. All scientific laws are apart of theories, that's the definition of a theory. Here is a link to a definition of the word theory http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory if you still don't get it. We don't date old things by using Carbon dating, we use: * argon-argon (Ar-Ar) * helium (He-He) * iodine-xenon (I-Xe) * lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) * lead-lead (Pb-Pb) * lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) * neon-neon (Ne-Ne) * potassium-argon (K-Ar) * rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) * rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) * samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) * uranium-lead (U-Pb) * uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) * uranium-thorium (U-Th) * uranium-uranium (U-U) Carbon dating is only for dating really young things, so it doesn't matter if we only have carbon records for the past thousands of years because that's all we use it for. If Carbon dating is wrong, then how come it got the dates for things like the dead sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian tombs and other things correct? We can account for discrepancies in things like living animals, however we can't just discount it's accuracy in thousands of year old things. If you don't understand something, it doesn't automatically mean God done it. If you try to understand why something is so, perhaps you will find a reason beyond "God done it." Jesus didn't say the Earth is 6000 years old. It was just some religious scholar who made the number up based on his personal findings. The bible doesn't state anywhere the actual age of the Earth or the universe, so I don't see why people go around claiming as if it did. Why bother bring up the point that fossils aren't as old as people say if it doesn't actually conflict the bible? The 60,000 years thing isn't a theoretical limit, it's an technological one (inaccurate measurement). One way you can do this is by calculating the half life on a sample of rocks of different ages. I guess it's the equivalent of finding fossils of animals, except it's fossils of Carbon-14. There isn't any fundamental difference why the the decay constant should change since Carbon-14 is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons as ever other atom. Since protons, neutron and electron properties don't change, neither should the decay such constituents.

There are pretty severe flaws with this line of thinking (have you ever studied astrophysics?). If you bothered to actually look at what the Bullet Cluster is, you would find that the bright part of the cluster is your molecular hydrogen. Molecular Hydrogen photodissociates when exposed to intense radiation (UV radiation or higher). The collision in the Bullet Cluster has caused all the gas in the clusters to heat up and emit x-ray radiation, dissociating all the molecular hydrogen around it. The 'Dark Matter' can't possibly be molecular hydrogen because the x-rays emitted from the cluster are more then powerful enough to dissociate molecular hydrogen. If the dark matter was molecular hydrogen then we should see at the very least, the outer layers of the 'Dark Matter' consisting of neutral hydrogen (which is radio-visible). Even if you want to ignore the above, it still doesn't explain the lack of tracer elements (CO is commonly found around molecular hydrogen) which can be detected. Another problem is that a collision of this magnitude should cause any Giant Molecular Clouds to collapse from the collision emitting density waves. This collapse would cause star formation and further dissociation of molecular hydrogen. I know that molecular hydrogen itself is invisible, but is there any evidence to show that Giant Molecular Clouds are invisible? We can detect these clouds by detecting tracer elements and also detecting increases in interstellar reddening correlating to increased lensing. The influence of passing galaxies and galaxy clusters should also cause these clouds to collapse into nebulae, however this doesn't occur.

Ok but it doesn't explain why radiometric dating is consistent with independent dating methods such as tree rings, ice cores, optical dating, Milankovitch cycles, relative dating (deeper is older), Hawaiian archipelago (older islands dated as older) and dating objects with known dates (dead sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian burials). It's certainly not disputed among physicists, radioactivity is core concept of Quantum Mechanics. If I told you to measure the width of my hair with a ruler, could you be accurate to within the nearest hundredth of a micrometre? You need a statistically useful proportion of parent-daughter atoms. There has also been disproportionately high levels of carbon in the past 200 years due to the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear testing screwing up the dating of young things. Keep filling those gaps with God... The sun hasn't been shrinking at the same rate for 4.5 billion years. The sun shrinks and expands according to hydrostatic equilibrium which is determined by a number of different variables. In a few billion years the sun is going to expand past the Earth's orbit to form a Red Giant, so does that mean the Sun should be expanding now instead of shrinking? It's not that simple. You can verify that Carbon's half-life is constant, much in the same way you can verify that a stars radius is not inversely proportional to its age.

Wait, what? Oh that's right God put the fossils there to trick us right? Why did you have to post this?

The life time of a black hole is proportional to its mass. This would mean that heavy black holes live for an extremely long time and black holes made in a particle accelerator would evaporate almost instantaneously. Basically the chance of a black hole destroying the Earth in this manner is 0%. Even if the black hole did suck up the Earth, it's gravity would be exactly the same; the moon will still orbit the black hole-Earth and in turn orbits around the sun. All a black hole really does is compact matter to a tiny size.

Marmet is using hydrogen as a replacement for CDM, the bullet cluster shows evidence of gravitational lensing by CDM so there is no need for a replacement; the other article's conclusion states that there is no evidence for CDM. Thanks for proving my point, an expert in electron spectroscopy doesn't make you an expert in astrophysics; much in the same way an aeronautical engineer isn't an expert on civil engineering. How many of his spectroscopy papers were peer reviewed? Now how many of his Relativity papers are peer reviewed? The problem is this guy doesn't get his paper's on relativity peer reviewed, meaning he doesn't put his work under scrutiny by his peers. If he strongly believes that his work is true then why shouldn't they be checked for factuality? This source is as valid as any old crank; At least Alex Chiu has patents for his immortality ring, this guy has nothing. Einstein was sceptical of Quantum Mechanics yet this doesn't invalidate his work in Relativity. This happens when you move to a wildly different framework, some people are just resistant to change and Marmet is one of those people (Marmet is a 73 year old guy who died a few years ago). That statement is true relative to the framework of Science and Physics. Marmet's paper mostly references to his other non-peer reviewed work, with his other references having nothing to do with the technical parts of his work (such as an article saying that we detected hydrogen). The other paper references Boomerang data, when newer data on the bullet galaxy refutes the claim the paper makes. Did you even bother to look under the crust or do you just like making smarmy comments? Where does it say anywhere on that page that objects past a event horizon travel faster then light? There is a mention of light travelling faster then light in a paper from 1784, however the article goes on to say that it was later shown that this was not the case. In the very same article it states verbatim that "relativity forbids anything from traveling faster than light" (under this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Mathematical_theory). Where on Earth are you getting this idea from, because it isn't from the link you provided. No it doesn't, inflation is the idea that space-time inflates at a speed greater than the speed of light. This explains why the universe is so homogeneous and isotropic, yet is able to be larger the speed of light permits. When the universe was small, it was completely in casual contact, thus being able to remain under relative homogeneity and isotropy. Inflation then rapidly expands the already casually contacted universe into what it is today, without creating contradiction.

Ever heard of practicality? And you think what your doing isn't pointless? Posting on an internet message board? Everything that you do on Earth is pointless, your just going to die; if you believe in an eternal afterlife it makes your life on Earth even more pointless and insignificant. How pointless is arguing about Relativism or Universality, when you have no control over it, does it really matter in the end? If the tables were turned and there are only absolute positions it would in fact make discussion even more pointless since there is only one answer. Tell me an absolute frame of reference from which we can evaluate propositions and I'll be happy. The simple answer is you can't provide one and that's the downfall of Universality. People are irrational, we are full of biases such as cognitive and cultural biases; it would be absurd to suggest that we could somehow come to an absolute statement of truth. Yes. What actually makes sense in this world? Either I can wake up and be a sceptic towards everything and never get anywhere in my life or I can make reasonable assumptions to help reduce the need for scepticism. Just because it's not practical to be a 'pure' relativist, doesn't mean that it isn't any less plausible.

Doesn't take into account data from the Bullet Cluster, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster for a summary. The first site you gave was from a guy who doesn't understand and disbelieves in General Relativity, The Hydrogen explanation is just him trying to fit observation to his theory (it still doesn't and never will explain the Bullet Cluster). Neither authors are trained in astrophysics or astronomy; it's like getting a civil engineer to do the job of an aeronautical engineer since they are both engineers. Particles don't go faster then the speed of light, the big bang wasn't a normal kind of explosion. During inflation the only thing exploding is space, not matter. Particles that go faster then the speed of light are only a theoretical situation and that they go back in time is also theoretical. Do you even know what the CMB (what you call UMB) is? It has nothing to do with what you just said, your explanation doesn't make any sense at all. The origin of the system doesn't matter, If I put some liquid in a Thermos (to stop heat escaping the container) and I could call the liquid as being in a closed system. I would then know that the liquid inside my Thermos would eventually reach an even temperature due to thermodynamic laws. Exactly, that's why it doesn't make sense to use a scientific explanation to discuss what happens before the big bang. It's called discussion, in order to discuss some things I need to make some common ground (assumptions) over which to discuss. One of those things could be to legitimise the findings of people who work in the field. I haven't personally conducted many experiments, however the ones that I have done are consistent with current observation; I have no reason to doubt the findings I'm referring to. We are all practically at the same point in space, even though we might be different people we all live in the same environment. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that we see the same (or very similar) things; why would an atmosphere exist for someone but not another? For the sake of the topic I'm just going to assume that we see the same things; much in the same way you might assume that gravity is constant all over Earth or that we assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere.

That's true, but that doesn't stop absolute statements being consistent with my reality. If I said "I'm standing still," that is an absolute statement which is true for "my reality." I don't give a toss what you think, if it's consistent or inconsistent with your reality; that isn't the point of an absolute statement. If someone is not moving with respect to myself, then the statement is also consistent, if not then it's not consistent. This isn't perspective, this is physical relativity. Absolute statements are never true or false, they are only consistent or inconsistent with respect to a reality; it doesn't make absolute statements any less valid. I don't understand why you find this so hard to grasp.

Well no one has made mention of such ways, so until someone does it's moot. If I can't use the same method of access and neither can anyone else, it's not going to be useful for discussion in this topic. No I have the knowledge (I know that much), it's a question of whether everyone else has that knowledge. I can make absolute statements, it's a matter of whether they are consistent with everyone else; it's not like the world being relative, magically stops me from making absolute statements. Do I know that the poster doesn't have a way of knowing something that I don't, no; however I've seen many white swans in my life.

And maybe having two fathers or mothers may have made you an even better person than now; how is this an argument for anything.

I'll post it again, I said at the end of my post: "That's the crux of my argument, it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation." How is this saying I know what happened at the beginning of the universe; stop putting words in my mouth. If you don't want to listen to what I say, don't; I never made claim to objectivity.

Ok, so why haven't we taken all the moral guidelines out of the bible and compiled it into a small concise book without all that non-literal nonsense. Why do so many people persist with using copies of the bible when there is so much Christian literature out there that concisely discuss the morals from the bible, instead of having resort to telling stories with morals. Your view of Christianity is on the fringe as much as a literal view of the bible.

Have you ever heard of Scientific Anti-Realism? It's one of the biggest topics (Scientific Realism/Anti-Realism) in the philosophy of science, and from the way it's going I doubt it's going to be resolved any time soon. Say there is a theory, how can we evaluate any claims that it makes about objective truth? How can a subjective mind evaluate an objective claim/truth, wouldn't such an evaluation be a contradiction? Newtonian Physics and Luminous Ether were long held to be objectively true, so why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

Well answer my question that I've asked you a few times now: I say I'm standing still, someone on the moon will say I'm moving at 465m/s and someone on the sun will say I'm moving at 30km/s, so who is right according to your absolute reality? People might hold views like communism or libertarianism but don't live by them because they know that in reality it is impossible to reproduce these views ideally. In the perfect world I couldn't question someone's reality, however in order to do anything productive I assume that some of my views of reality are consistent with everyone. By the way thanks for taking this off-topic Ghost-Locke.

"Parental incest is known to sometimes do severe psychological harm to a child, due to the child's physical, mental, and emotional dependence on a parent, due to total disparity in the power of authority, due to the disparity in emotional and physical maturity, and finally due to the fact that the incestuous relationship may damage or destroy healthy aspects of childhood development. Children have been observed to go into disassociated or reclusive mental or emotional states due to shame associated with their parent's predation, which is thought to overwhelm their coping capabilities. Becoming "dead inside" is another tactic children have been observed to use in an attempt to deaden the associated pain. Suppression of emotions, as well as a halt or a severe reduction in personal growth has been observed, similar to the effects studied in the psychology of torture. Some children involved in incest suffer from what is known as complex trauma due to developmental immaturity, due to repeated incests, and/or due to being forced to ignore the incest(s) as a child. In adulthood, chronic, complex, and cyclic post traumatic stress has been observed in some individuals of childhood parental incest. Shame, suspicion, and unconscious alienation is thought by some psychologists to occur in the first stage of trauma transformation as the victim attempts to suppress past pain. Rage, terror, and sorrow have been observed to surface in the second stage as the victim begins to become conscious of the incest acts. In the last stage of trauma transformation, genuine self-esteem, genuine desire, and, on occasion, genuine joy have been seen in victims. These stages have been observed to take decades to complete and, in extreme cases, to cycle on until the victim's death. Some victims of parental incest suffer severe depression, and/or have committed suicide. Some victims also predate against their own children thus resulting in a legacy of incest in following generations, a form of vicious cycle. Often, even if trauma transformation was successful, survivors have reported that due to the betrayal of innocence, the incest-associated losses, and the trauma-transformation related costs, their lives were much worse off than peers who had not suffered incest by their parents." You mean that incest could be illegal due to psychological reasons (such as abuse of power) and isn't about morals? No way! But I forgot its more fun to flame each other about belief systems.

I'm sure. I don't have a way to access what happened 'beforehand', If you find a way let me know and I'll see if I can reproduce your way; from my understanding of the universe, it's apparently impossible to see 'beforehand'. Exactly. The only reason why I'm making blanket statements is so I can have some kind of discussion. If you wanted to be fundamental about it, sure we will never agree upon what we see, however that's not the point of this thread. The point of this is a scientific discussion about the big bang. Science is an attempt to introduce a common framework in which we can share knowledge; it doesn't change the fact that knowledge is interpreted subjectively. Did you even read my post, at the end I even said: "it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation."

Did I ever say I was sure? I'm only explaining what I believe to be reality, whether you agree with it is up to you. I'm here to provide discussion, not to force you into what I believe. If you want to believe your house really exists for everyone, the sky is red with blood and that there really is a firmament then go right ahead, just don't expect a lengthy discussion about it.

Incest is wrong for the same reason that teacher-student relationships are wrong (even when the student is of legal age). Family members (like teachers) are entrusted with a duty of care, so having an intimate relationship would lead to a violation of that duty (as it causes a conflict of interest). Something which is very beneficial, doesn't make it universal. If "murder is wrong" is very beneficial and universal, then why does it still occur?

They aren't, the big bang is what happens just after creation and we can infer about it through things like Microwave background radiation and galactic red shifting; how do you propose we find out what happened before the big bang? Basically science follows the following quote: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein We have a way of which to access the universe, so we have a way in which to talk of the universe. On the other hand we don't have a way to access what happened before the universe so we can't possibly say anything useful about it. Please tell me what you mean by nothing, since nothing is a fairly ambiguous term. If you mean 'literally nothing', well then your statement is a tautology and there is nothing that I can say to prove you wrong. However if you mean 'nothing' as in non-classical (views of the conservation of energy), a 'consequence of physics' or 'lacking a cause -> effect chain', then there are a few things which could be considered as coming from 'nothing'. A classic example would be the Casmir effect (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6 for an explanation), this force certainly doesn't obey classical conservation of energy. Where does it state that it was an expansion of pre-existing energy, that's an assumption you're making. It still begs the question, where does the 'pre-existing energy' come from? Your just using term 'pre-existing' as codeword for "I have no [bleep]ing idea". A perfect pendulum in a vacuum swings forever, (air) resistance is the main thing slowing down a pendulum. If you are not removing energy from an oscillating system then there is no reason for it to stop oscillating. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory, it's one of those words that have completely different meanings (in this case opposite) depending on the context. Notice how "1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." is the opposite to "7. guess or conjecture." Now which one do you think is used to describe things like big bang theory or theory of relativity? How is an 'inflaton field' any different from creating energy from 'nothing', in this case we have given 'nothing' a name and a description. How is getting energy from a transition from the metastable to stable any different then getting energy from 'nothing'. For all we know the universe is still in a false vacuum and energy might be released at any time. And again: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein What makes you able to acknowledge a God creating the universe in the first place? You can't infer anything about "the creation", so why can you speak about it? The only thing you are going on is the bible, and that is conjecture unless proven otherwise. The 'quantum fluctuation analogy' for example isn't either option. Say the universe follows some time-energy uncertainty, then the universe is both closed and obeys the 2nd law. For all we know the universe could just spontaneously appear and disappear at any time, hence has a net energy of 0. That's the crux of my argument, it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation.

Yeah, and I meant that God came into existence after the first person thought of God, not when you first thought of God.

The origin of the universe isn't a question for science to answer, it's outside the scope of science. However the phenomenon does exist (Quantum fluctuations), it's actually one way of explaining why we have so much energy in the universe (the small fluctuations of energy that occurred got stretched out during the short time span of inflation). You were the one that brought up energy being constant in other universes. You wrote: "All matter and energy(which would include the Universe) would be infinitely old because it would never have had a beginning(a creation)", but Atheism or cosmology (for that matter) doesn't agree with that. The universe did have a creation, I don't think anyone disputes that; people dispute that it was the Christian God that caused creation. The only other alternative is a cyclic universe, however it's not well supported at present (accelerating universe). No, Theory basically means scientific fact; you can find it in any dictionary. In inflation theory it is known as the inflaton field/inflatons, it's a field existing in the universe which caused a huge repulsion. And that's why you can't 'use science' to disprove either side. The problem is that there are many more alternatives then you propose. One popular example being the many worlds interpretation, another being that the universe is just similar to a quantum fluctuation in space containing the universe. In essence there are a practically endless amount of ways which could of created the universe, restricting yourself to one idea is rather short sighted. When it comes to science, yes it does.

It doesn't make any sense to say that you wrote something before imagining it. In order to write something you need to mentally process what you are going to write in order to form a coherent sentence. Writing about something is exactly the same thing as imagining something; basically you need to think in order to write. If my invisible friend exists in my reality but doesn't in yours, it doesn't mean that my friend really exists; we both know its just my imagination. So I guess everything a person with schizophrenia truly believes to exist, really does; thanks for the heads up. No and I never said that something exists and doesn't exist in the same reality (even though you could say that if such a thing were to occur it would be classed as a supernatural effect and ignore the whole problem entirely). You argued that something cant both exist and not exist, full stop. It's pretty clear from our understanding of how the universe works that there is no preferred frame of reference. Arguing about an objective reality where something must or mustn't exist is pointless in the world of relativity.

Let's try that again. When you ask a nonsensical question, do you expect a sensible answer in return? It doesn't make sense to be able to answer if a God exists or not since it is impossible to evaluate God's existence. There is no way that you can disprove that we did in fact imagine god and it's history into existence since the position is just as nonsensical. No, it just means that our realities are inconsistent. I guess my invisible friend must exist as well, we play hopscotch and marbles together. I don't know that your house exists, I don't know that you exist beyond the posts that you make here. You could just be an AI responding to [developmentally delayed]ed posts. My reality is inconsistent to yours, it doesn't invalidate it. It's like saying that I'm standing still yet someone sees me travelling at 100 kilometres an hour. You would claim someone has to be right, yet in reality we are both right (I'll give you a hint, I'm standing in a train). See where I'm getting at?